building versus bildung - Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

BUILDING VERSUS BILDUNG
COLOFON:
Ontwerp kaft, binnenwerk, illustraties: De Jongens Ronner Groningen
Druk: Facilitair Bedrijf RUG
ISBN: 9036723094
Copyright: RuG (2005)
Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden vermenigvuldigd zonder schriftelijke toestemming van auteur.
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
BUILDING VERSUS BILDUNG
Manfredo Tafuri and the construction of a historical discipline
PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de
Letteren
aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
op gezag van de
Rector Magnificus, dr. F. Zwarts,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op
donderdag 8 september 2005
om 14.45 uur
door
Titia Rixt Hoekstra
geboren op 15 april 1969
te Joure
Promotor:
prof. dr. E.R.M.Taverne
Beoordelingscommissie:
prof. ir. S. U. Barbieri
prof. dr. B. Verschaffel
prof. dr. K. van Berkel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
8
CHAPTER 1
Introduction, about different Tafuri’s
A newspaper obituary
Tafuri’s reception: the thirty-year itch
About different Tafuri’s
11
24
29
35
CHAPTER 2
About the conversion from architecture to history
Childhood: the problem of becoming uprooted
First encounters with a philosophical and artistic world
University years
Urban protest
The techniques of political resistance
First ‘professional’activities
Breaking the ties: Manfredo’s historical turn
I will throw away the compass!
43
45
47
51
53
58
63
66
69
CHAPTER 3
Operative history in Rome: Zevi, Benevolo and Tafuri
Benevolo, Zevi and Tafuri
Architectural history in Rome: a fight between modernities
Leonardo Benevolo
The bitterness ofprogress
Bruno Zevi and the student movement
Tafuri’s Teorie e Storia
75
76
79
83
91
94
100
CHAPTER 4
Portrait of a historian as a young man
Tafuri and the hopes of history
The burden of fascism
New dimensions
Different realisms
A course in architectural history
Architecture as a guilt complex
A book about Ludovico Quaroni
107
109
111
118
129
134
139
141
5
CHAPTER 5
Towards a new architectural history
Tafuri in Venice
‘1968’and the students of architecture
Revolution without a content
A struggle for power
Critique as the history of architecture
Contropiano
Critique of ideology in Venice
Massimo Cacciari
Progetto e Utopia
History beyond the Modern Movement
Allontanare l’angoscia
Architecture: a useful category of analysis
149
151
152
157
161
162
165
166
173
183
191
196
197
Epilogue
The quest of the architectural historian
206
Appendix
210
Bibliography
224
Samenvatting
243
Index
249
6
7
PREFACE
February 25th 1994 was a special day for me. While spending the academic year as an
Erasmusstudent at the Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia, that day I witnessed
an event that made a deep impression on me. Before I went to Venice, my professor in
Groningen advised me to follow the courses of Manfredo Tafuri, which he recommended
as being special. Once arrived in Venice, I took his advice seriously and went to listen to a
professor whose performance was dominated by his poor health. Professor Tafuri seemed
physically weak, but very strong in his analyses of architecture, in his ability to build up a
discourse consisting of architects, buildings and political, cultural and intellectual history.
However, little could I imagine that the course Arte, Politica e architettura nella Roma
medicea (1513-1527). Dal mito dell’ “eta’ d’oro” alla catastrofe del sacco was actually
Tafuri’s last course. On Wednesday 23 February Tafuri died in his sleep because of heart
failure. Being assembled in the courtyard of the Tolentini building on 25 February, around
Tafuri’s coffin, went beyond my imagination. Although there are a good few professors
who demonstrate a considerable involvement in the civitatis Academia, I think very few
of them would imagine their funeral service being held in the university courtyard.
While listening to Cacciari’s funeral speech, I realized how much Tafuri’s thinking about
architectural history had been a part of an ethical conviction concerning life. Beyond any
display of brilliance, any intellectual superiority, it became clear to me that this was the
most profound message that Tafuri could pass on to us, his young students.
Many years have past since I walked in Venice, discussing the work of Tafuri and Cacciari
with my colleague student Bernard Kormoss. They were years in which it became
increasingly clear to me that a study of this size is always the work of a collective,
notwithstanding the many hours of work invested by an enthusiastic ‘AIO’. In the last
stage of this dissertation, both my ‘promotor’, Ed Taverne, and my sister, Hanneke
Hoekstra, formed an unconventional, yet very inspiring team, whose guidance proved
indispensable for the completion of this study. I thank Ed Taverne for his honesty in
pointing at the weak points of my approach; I realize now that those criticisms were of
greater value to me than any kind of ‘cheap’ appraisal. The analytical and conceptual skills
of my sister were a crucial help for me when sometimes I lost my way in the jungle of
Italian architectural theory; when everything seemed equally important to me. I am also
indebted to prof. dr. Frank Ankersmit for his expertise comments on my work. Although
the book I wrote is quite different from what we envisaged at the start, his insights have
been a constant intellectual stimulus.
Discussions with fellow students have laid the foundation of this book. I thank Bernard
Kormoss for providing me with an initial, yet very thorough insight in the work of both
Tafuri and Cacciari. Roberto Zancan, Alberto Mozzato and Luka Skansi have been very
generous in offering me their help, which ranged from drinking a good glass of wine to
delving in the library in search of some document or other. As a student, Federico Rosa
had the courage to confront ‘il maestro’ from within the I.U.A.V., resulting in a very
interesting master thesis about the first professional years of Manfredo Tafuri. I am also
indebted to prof. dr. Sergio Polano and prof. dr. Donatella Calabi for their support and
interest in my work. When this book was nearly finished, Marco Biraghi’s Progetto di
Crisi, Manfredo Tafuri e l’architettura contemporanea (Milan, 2005) was published.
8
Although I read the book while editing my dissertation, I have not been able to include it
in my bibliography.
This research would not have been possible without the support of various
organizations that facilitated my research. I thank the NIR in Rome and the NWO for
enabling my study in Italy. I also thank prof. dr. Stuart Woolf in Venice for providing me
with a Marie Curie Fellowship within the framework of the European Doctorate Program
‘Building on the Past’. In Groningen, the Promovendi-en Postdoc Centre has been of vital
importance for the completion of my dissertation. The PPC was a pillar of stability in the
final, stressful stages of the making of this book. Not in the least, I thank all my colleagues
at the PPC for their friendship and for being sparring-partners. I thank Lenny Vos and
Arend Jagersma for sharing all the frustrations of being a junior research student with me.
Lenny remained a faithful travelling companion, also within the PPC. I am indebted to prof.
dr. Mineke van Essen for giving me a place within the PPC, to Renske Brandsma and
Henny Kikkert for their organizational and financial support. I also thank Fiona McGowan
for correcting my English.
My parents have been a silent force on the background from the first day of this project
to its conclusion. It is a remarkable and comforting thought to know that they love me not
for what I write or accomplish, but for who I am. I thank my sister Marike for her
enduring friendship. Finally, the last words of this preface should be dedicated to a little
girl with blond hair and blue eyes who refuses to wear anything other than pink dresses.
This is my little niece Jits. She has been a tremendous help by taking me to the local
‘cafetaria’ to buy ice cream for her and by seducing me into the ‘Blokker’ to buy a gift for
her, providing it was less than three euros. To her I dedicate this book.
9
‘fare storia’ announcement of the conference
INTRODUCTION: ABOUT DIFFERENT TAFURI’S.
Nur wer sich wandelt, bleibt mit mir verwandt.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse.
The twelfth of December 2002 was a special date for the history department of the Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia. It was the first day of a conference called ‘Fare
Storia’ – ‘Doing History’.1 The first speaker, although not announced on the programme,
was the architectural historian Francesco Dal Co. His words were a brief comment on the
theme of the conference, and perhaps also on the event itself.
➛ Today in the newspapers we read about ‘doing history’. But does one ‘do’ history?
What does this actually mean? Is it possible to do history; is it possible to write objective texts about the past? …History is that which enchants because it disenchants. But history can never speak the ultimate words because it never gives any
certainties. ‘Doing history’ then means action in the light of this challenge. It means
occupying oneself with that which is not ours, with that which we have lost, with
what has evaded us. We don’t possess history, we don’t comprehend it. There are
no last words in history.2
The conference was presented as the first part of a new PhD programme in architectural
history but was not an easy introduction to the topic. Usually seminars and conferences
in architectural history deal with specific themes, such as ‘The Algiers Project of Le Corbusier’, or ‘City-planning in Nineteenth-century France’. It is already relatively rare in architectural history to find a conference dedicated to the position of the actual historian, to the
craft, or the act of ‘doing’. However, what made this conference even more unique was
that the first lines of its introduction addressed issues at the highest level of abstraction.
As one student remarked rather desperately during the second day of the conference:
‘I have just started this PhD programme and I would like to receive some concrete assistance, a helping hand in how to go about my research. Instead you confront me with very
abstract reflections about the writing of architectural history.’3 The particular character of
this conference had everything to do with the legacy of a very influential architectural
historian, one who had spent the greater part of his life teaching at the Department of
1 A conference under the name ‘Fare Storia’ is organized every year by the staff of the PhD programme ‘Il Dottorato
in Storia dell’architettura e della città, Scienze delle arti, Restauro’, at the School for Advanced Studies in Venice
Foundation, Venice. Senior architectural historians, art historians and historians speak about their experiences of
‘doing history’. After these lectures, the PhD students are given the chance to ask questions and enter into discussion
with the academics.
2 ‘Fare Storia’ conference, Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia, Dipartimento di Storia dell’architettura,
12-14 December 2002, introduction by Francesco Dal Co. Speaking about recent newspaper reports, Dal Co specifically referred to a resolution that was accepted by the Italian Chamber on 12 December 2002, which obliged the
Minister of Education to regulate the contents of the history books used in schools. This proposal and its approval by
Berlusconi’s government raised a storm of protest among leftist and centre parties. Carlo Giovanardi, from the Udc
(Unione Democratico Cristiano di Centro, the former Christian Democrats) said: ‘It is not the task of the executive to
control the objectivity of books about history’. La Repubblica, ‘Testi di storia, contrari i centristi’, 12 December 2002.
11
Tafuri, on the left, speaking with the Spanish architect Rafael Moneo at the Biennale of Venezia, 1991
Architectural History of the Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia. This was the
historian Manfredo Tafuri, who was born in Rome in 1935 and died in Venice in 1994. On a
worldwide scale Tafuri was one of the most influential architectural historians of the twentieth century.
To a certain extent, Dal Co’s comment was symptomatic of the problem that was central to this meeting. In essence, how did the event of this conference reflect the state of
the discipline of architectural history after the year 2000? ‘Doing history’ – should Dal Co’s
words be interpreted as a sign that the naturalness of this ‘doing’ is no longer present;
that it has become necessary to reflect on history? Or should his words be seen as an
incentive to not lose oneself in thought about history; that history first and foremost is a
question of action? After Dal Co had set the stage, the Italian philosopher Remo Bodei
made his appearance. In his speech, Bodei certainly pointed in the direction of the first
option. From a philosophical point of view, Bodei spoke of a central problem behind all
forms of writing history, including architectural history.
➛ What is drastically declining is the capacity to think about a collective future, to
imagine this outside of one’s private expectations. History appears to many to be the
orphan of that intrinsic logic that was believed to lead towards a certain objective:
progress, the reign of liberty or a society without classes. A culture has faded that,
between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, led billions of people to believe
that events were taking a certain course, either announced or predicted . . . Fading
away, without having been refuted, the idea of a single oriented history, the sense of
our living in time seems, today more than ever, to be dispersed in a plurality of histories . . .4
History is no longer part of a collective project-for-the-future; a project dominated by the
belief in progress and a better world. The direction of history writing in 2002 is once again
undecided: it is an open discipline. It is from the perspective of the open and undecided
character of the discipline that we may understand the opening lecture of the conference,
given by an aging James Ackerman, an American architectural historian. Ackerman
(San Francisco, 1918), called his lecture ‘Ruminations on Sixty-Plus Years as an Architectural Historian in America’. Ackerman’s position is indeed unique as his personal career
coincides with the development of art and architectural history into an academic
discipline. Ackerman spoke of his experiences as a seventeen-year-old boy, when in 1937
he read the first art history book published in America, a book dedicated to Renaissance
painting. At that time art history books were – as Ackermann explained in Italian – ‘Un insieme disorganica di varie materie’ (A non-organic whole of diverse disciplins).
Special programmes in art history or art historical departments at the American universities did not yet exist.5 Ackerman also mentioned the influence that Tafuri had on him:
3 This book contains many translations. All translations are by the author unless otherwise specified.
4 Remo Bodei, ‘Pensare il futuro, o come l’utopia si è separato dalla storia’.
5 See also James Ackerman, Distance Points, Essays in Theory and Renaissance Art and Architecture, Massachusetts,
1991. This is a very interesting book in which Ackerman testifies to the development of the discipline through his own
professional and occasionally personal experiences.
13
➛I was impressed by his ideological capacity and by his integrity of method…
He enriched a purely visual approach to architectural history… He made us aware
that architecture was a part of the social fabric, a question of individuals, institutions,
social structures and so on.
However, for Ackerman there was also the problem of how to approach the discipline
after Tafuri. In fact, when a student from the audience asked him how a young architectural historian should deal with the incredible load created by the intellectual explorations
of Tafuri, Ackerman could not provide a clear answer. He replied:
➛I think it is a question of maturing… everyone has to make their own history,
everyone has to follow a road of formation. It is impossible to consume everything
that is offered, it is too difficult. I see in young people nowadays a certain impatience
with regard to the formation of the historian. But history is a craft you learn during an
entire life.
The other lectures at this conference also clearly reflected the burden that has been
created by the intellectual explorations of a previous century. The American architectural
historian Joseph Connors presented research which suggested a new way of considering
the picturesque character of the urban tissue of Rome. He connected the characteristics
of the urban structures of Rome to the conflicts of power created by the clash between
‘high politics’ and ‘low politics’. He also mentioned the virtues of structuralist
methodology for architectural history, the microstoria and the influence of feminist
research. The conference concluded with lectures by historians who were not directly
connected with the field of architectural history. The Italian historian Giovanni Levi spoke
on ‘The Historians, Psycho-analysis and the Truth’, while Jacques Revel, a French
historian, spoke on the theme ‘Biography and Social History’.6
The aim of the ‘Fare Storia’ conference was to reflect on the craft of doing history:
its tools, methods and conventions. As such, the conference signalled the entrance of
architectural history into our reflective, epistemology-conscious age, that presently dominates many disciplines within the humanities. Its title referred to the book Faire de
l’histoire, published by the French historians Jacques Le Goff and Pierre Nora in 1974,
6
Giovanni Levi is a professor in modern history at the history department of the Ca’Foscari University of Venice. He is connected with micro-storia and his publications include ‘L’eredità immateriale: carriera di un esorcista nel Piemonte del Seicento, Torino’, Microstorie 10, 1985. Jacques Revel is a
professor in the field of the cultural history of modern Europe. He teaches at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris and is associated with the journal Annales d’histoire économique et sociale (founded 1929).
7 Jacques Le Goff, Pierre Nora, Faire de l’histoire, Paris, 1974. Translated into English as: Jacques Le Goff and Pierre
Nora, Constructing the Past: Essays in Historical Methodology, Cambridge, 1985. Tafuri and his team of architectural
historians were influenced by the French historians related to the Annales journal. In an interview, Tafuri mentions,
for example, Lucien Febvre’s Le problème de l’incroyance au XVIe siècle; la religion de Rabelais (197442) or his earlier
Un destin, Martin Luther, un destin (1928). Jacques Le Goff was an important representative of the so-called third
generation of Annales historians; Tafuri had read his La naissance du Purgatoire (1982). As far as I know, Tafuri did not
study Nora, who became renowned for his monumental series Les lieux de mémoire (1984-1992).
14
which showed that the awareness of an historical operation within history itself –
involving, for example, the personality of the historian and the subjectivity of his or her
selection of data – leads to a particular kind of historiographical reflection.7 However, the
conference in Venice also stood out among its disciplinary counterparts. The aim of its
organizers was not merely to catch up with the latest in historiographical fashion. In a
more fundamental way, the architectural historians saw this conference as part of a larger
project to raise architectural history to a more mature level, confirming its status as a true
and proper academic discipline. In this respect, most of the speakers were well aware of
the moral legacy left by the historian Manfredo Tafuri. As the organizers of the conference
saw themselves as working towards the realization of a vision that Tafuri formulated in the
late 1960s, most of the speakers could not escape the moral duty of somehow formulating a response to the quest that marked this historian’s career. In 2002, eight years after
Tafuri’s death, the well-known ‘confusion after the funeral’ continued to mark the conference. The father had left the scene and the children had to fend for themselves: what are
we going to do now?
In a society that fundamentally changed in the second half of the twentieth century, can
architectural history continue to derive its meaning from the modernist strategies as elaborated during the first part of the century, or should a new definition of architectural history be developed? This was the question that Tafuri posed during the second part of the
1960s. This question occupied his entire life and motivated him to write a special book
called Teorie e Storia dell’architettura. Immediately after publication in 1968 this book became a bestseller, first in Italy and later on an international scale.8 The French would call
this a ‘succès du scandal’, as its fame was largely due to its provocative stance. In fact,
this was not an ordinary book about architectural history: it was not a ‘decent’ monograph
about a modern architect and it certainly was not about the style characteristics of Roman
or Gothic architecture, for example. On the first page of Teorie e Storia the reader was
confronted with a puzzling dialogue between the Marquis de Sade and the French painter
Jean-Paul Marat.
➛ Sade: To sort out the true from the false / we must know ourselves / I/ don’t know
myself / When I think I have discovered something / I begin to doubt . . .
Marat: We must pull ourselves out of the ditch / by our boot-straps / turn inside-out
/ and see everything with new eyes . . .
So much for conservatism; so much for a book clarifying the essence of modern architecture. Teorie e Storia was essentially a collection of essays with curious names, such as
‘Modern Architecture and the Eclipse of History’, ‘Architecture as “Indifferent Object”’
and ‘Crisis of Critical Attention.’ Particularly striking were the last three chapters of the
8 In an essay, the architectural historian Giorgio Ciucci describes this book as ‘unexpectedly successful’ with reprints
in Italy in 1970, 1973, 1976, 1980 and 1986. The book was translated into Spanish in 1973, French in 1976, Portuguese
in 1979, and into English in the United States also in 1979, see Giorgio Ciucci, ‘The Formative Years’, in Casabella, nr.
619-620, ‘Il Progetto Storico di Manfredo Tafuri’ [The Historical Project of Manfredo Tafuri], January-February 1995,
p. 13. In an interview for a French architectural journal, Tafuri mentions that the book also sold well in Argentina and
in Chile, see ‘The Culture Markets – Françoise Very interviews Manfredo Tafuri’, now published in: ibid., p. 39.
15
book, dedicated entirely to the task and position of the critic:
4 Operative Criticism page: 141
5 Instruments of Criticism page: 171
6 The Tasks of Criticism page: 227
The agenda behind Teorie e Storia was indeed unique. In the 1960s it was not at all common for an architectural historian to ask such fundamental questions about the status of
the discipline. Architectural history only enjoyed a marginal position, either on the periphery of art history or on the periphery of the development of the architect. Architectural
history did not have an autonomous disciplinary structure: it did not possess its own
professional and scientific instruments. In the 1960s, when Tafuri became productive,
modern architectural history had been shaped to a great extent by a group of exceptional
art historians and architects. From a deep engagement within the course of the Modern
Movement, they had begun to write the history of modern architecture.
Among the arts, architecture has a special position. Paintings or sculptures, for example, are autonomous works of art that can be enjoyed in the isolated atmosphere of the
museum, but this is not the case for architecture. Architecture is only partially related to
the world of artists. Primarily it produces a technical and social product, as buildings perform a function within society. In architecture there will always be a tension between
ethics and aesthetics. At the beginning of the twentieth century, this battle was decided
in favour of ethics. For example, Dutch architects related to the movement known as ‘Het
Nieuwe Bouwen’ were convinced of their social task: architecture could make an important contribution to the process of cultural and social change. Architects therefore had to
let go of their artistic and formal ambitions and focus on the possibilities offered by industry and technology. Architecture was a means to create a community: ‘We have a world
to create’, wrote the Dutch architect Mart Stam (1899-1986).9 Stam became one of the
principal modernists in Dutch architectural history. Fuelled by his left-wing engagement,
he managed to seduce the members of the CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture
Moderne) into dedicating their second congress, held in June 1928 in La Sarraz, Switzerland, to the theme of housing for minimum wage earners.10 Although modern architects
had a notoriously difficult relationship with history – due to an allergy to the historical
eclecticism of nineteenth-century architects – it was not long before the first books about
the history of modern architecture appeared. In 1927 the German architect Gustav Adolf
Platz wrote what was possibly the first history of modern architecture, Die Baukunst der
Neusten Zeit, published by the Propyläen Verlag in Berlin. In the following years, other
architects and art historians continued to write important histories that greatly helped in
raising modern architecture to the status of a canon. In 1936 the émigré German art
historian Nikolaus Pevsner published his Pioneers of the Modern Movement from Morris
to Gropius, in London, while the Swiss architect and art historian Siegfried Giedion pub-
9 Mart Stam wrote this in a letter, as was mentioned in an exhibition called ‘The Awkward Years of Mart Stam’, held in
Purmerend, Stam’s birth place, in the winter of 1998. See: http://www.classic.archined.nl/news/9811/stam.html
10 See H. van Bergeijk and O. Mácel eds., ‘We vragen de kunstenaars kind te zijn van eigen tijd’ Teksten van Mart Stam,
Nijmegen, 1999.
16
lished his famous Space, Time and Architecture, The Growth of a New Tradition, in America in 1941. There is one central leitmotiv behind all these books: the historian writing
about modern architects and modern buildings also identifies with them. If the architect
builds for a better world, then the historian should reflect that ambition in history, through
the choice of buildings that are discussed, for example. For an architectural historian in the
1910s or the 1920s the question was: if these are the promises of modern architecture;
if these are its capacities, then how can architectural history do justice to that reality?11
This was also a question with an ethical obligation. If modern architecture stood for
progress and for a better future, then the historian could not treat the most recent chapter
of architectural history as any other chapter. Having arrived at the end of the historical
account – the contemporary phase – the historian had to indicate that now something very
special was happening, which would forever change the appearance of the world.
➛… architecture disposed of a new style. A series of determined and daring architects had created it, men of exceptional imagination and ingenuity. Since the creators of the Renaissance turned away from the Gothic five hundred years ago and put
something completely different in its place, there had not been a revolution in European architecture of similar scope; yes, the whole enterprise of these pioneers of
modern architecture seems even more audacious than that of Brunelleschi or
Alberti …12
‘Pioneers of modern architecture’ – this was the way in which Nikolaus Pevsner in 1942
optimistically announced the first signs of a new era in architecture. For historians like
Pevsner it had become an ethical obligation to write teleological histories. Histories of
11 Siegfried Giedion explained his idea of the task of the architectural historian in the book Architecture You and
Me: The Diary of a Development (1954). For Giedion, the connection between past, present and future was very
important. He wanted to distil out of the historical process those ‘living forces’ and ‘spiritual attitudes’ which still
determine our lives today. For Giedion, the concept of Zeitgeist allowed him to analyse, in a ‘biological way’, what
moves people and what constitutes the spiritual force behind their lives. As a clue to these vague ‘living forces’,
Giedion was interested in modern painting, for instance, in the work of Picasso. He considered that this task was so
serious and so difficult that the architectural historian should be a professional figure. However, for Giedion it was
beyond doubt that the problems of the day should guide our explorations into the future: ‘For this the historian must
have an understanding of his own period in its relation to the past and maybe also some inkling of those trends leading
into the future.’ Siegfried Giedion, Architecture You and Me: The Diary of Development, Cambridge Mass., 1954, p. 110.
12 Nikolaus Pevsner, Europaische Architektur, von den Anfange bis zur Gegenwart, Darmstadt, 1997, originally published as, An Outline of European Architecture, London, 1942, p. 363.
13 There is perhaps no greater contrast between Dal Co’s introduction to the conference: ‘history doesn’t provide any
certainties’ and the confident, firm style of Nikolaus Pevsner, writing half a century earlier. Pevsner’s Pioneers of Modern Design from William Morris to Walter Gropius, originally published as Pioneers of the Modern Movement in 1936,
particularly illustrates this assuredness. With rapid, confident steps, Pevsner walks us through his history of modern
architecture: ‘So our circle is complete. The history of artistic theory between 1890 and the First World War proves
the assertion on which the present work is based, namely, that the phase between Morris and Gropius is an historical
unit.’ Nikolaus Pevsner, Pioneers of Modern Design from William Morris to Walter Gropius, London, 1991, p. 39.
14 See especially Jürgen Joedicke, Geschichte der Modernen Architektur, Stockholm, 1958; and Peter Collins, Changing
Ideals in Modern Architecture, London, 1965.
17
modern architecture should have a clear plot, with a structure that leads to a clear goal:
the buildings of yesterday introduce the achievements of today, which are in turn the
overtures to the future final liberation.13
In the early 1950s the first cracks in the stronghold of historiographical modernity
became apparent. During this period a generation of architectural historians appeared
who tried anew to formulate the relationship between the architectural historian and
society. Architect-historians like Jürgen Joedicke from Germany and Peter Collins from
England took a critical, more distanced stance towards what now appeared as the canon
of modern architecture – the list of buildings that could be called authentically modern.14
For example, when Peter Collins published the book Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture in 1965, the reputation of historians like Pevsner and Giedion had risen to almost
mythical proportions – they were grand names that figured alongside architect-masters
like Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier. In his work, Collins introduced what he believed
to be an important amendment to their narrative, arguing that the formal aspects of modern buildings had now been extensively discussed by historians such as Hitchcock or
Giedion, but that the theories behind the forms had largely remained outside the debate.
Taking the ideas behind modern architecture as the starting point for analysis, Collins
extensively enlarged the period of architectural modernism. No longer confined to just
one age, Collins thought of modernism in architecture as encompassing the nineteenth
and part of the eighteenth centuries.15 In addition, Collins did not agree with those who
saw the architecture of the 1950s as the expression of a deep crisis in modern architecture. He considered that the newly emerging historicism and the revivals of styles – for
example, the so-called ‘Neo-liberty Movement’ in Italy – should not be seen as a backlash
15 Collins started his history around 1750. For my study of historiography I am greatly indebted to Michela Maguolo of
the I.U.A.V. in Venice, who in 1994 gave me the typescript ‘Le Storie dell’architettura moderna’, which was a specific
part of the course in the history of modern architecture by Professor Roberto Masiero. I am also indebted to the
initiatives taken by Patrizia Bonifazio and Paolo Scrivano from the Politecnico di Torino, Department of Architecture.
In particular, I refer to the conference of 1999 which led to the book, P. Bonifazio and R. Palma, eds., Architettura
Spazio Scritto, forme e tecniche delle teorie dell’architettura in Italia dal 1945 ad oggi, Torino, 2001. See also P. Scrivano,
Storia di un’idea di architettura moderna, Henry-Russell Hitchcock e L’International Style, Torino, 2001.
16 Collins’ views continue to find a following among architectural historians. For instance, in 1997 the Dutch architectural historian Auke van der Woud published an influential book called Waarheid en karakter, het debat over
de bouwkunst 1840-1900 [Truth and Character, the Debate about the Art of Building 1840-1900] in which he took
the ‘ideas, convictions and theories’ about building as the point of departure for an architectural history of the nineteenth century. Similarly to Collins, in the introduction he confesses to viewing modernism as the continuation of a
much longer historical development. However, in contrast to Collins, Van der Woude demonstrated a far more critical
attitude with respect to styles, regarding them as a ‘deep pitfall into which researchers tumble without ever
emerging.’ Auke van der Woud, Waarheid en Karakter, Het debat over de bouwkunst 1840-1900, Rotterdam, 1997.
This book was translated in English as: The Art of Building, from Classicism to Modernity: the Dutch Architectural
Debate 1840-1900, Aldershot, 2001.
17 I am referring to the cover photograph of the 1965 paperback edition by Faber and Faber in London. Collins was
indeed very critical of the sort of modern architecture that was not in tune with the environment. He considered
that architects who isolated their work from the context were ‘narcissists’. See P. Tournikiotis, The Historiography of
Modern Architecture, Cambridge, Massachusetts , 1999, pp. 167-191.
19
Tafuri’s death in Italian newspapers
against modernism, but as the conscious and mature use of the styles and forms with
which we are surrounded.16
Peter Collins expounded the ideas of a generation of architectural historians who first
developed a sensibility towards the historiographical tradition formed by architectural
historians such as Nikolaus Pevsner. Collins felt the weight of this tradition and he tried to
place himself vis à vis its legacy. In this respect, the photograph printed on the cover of
the book may be seen as a metaphor for the widening gap between two generations of
architectural historians. The photograph depicts a painful juxtaposition of a modern building with harsh geometrical lines built directly in front of a Parisian baroque apartment
building. The modern building is completely ignorant of its immediate environment and
the photograph therefore displays a clash between two ways of thinking about architecture, and perhaps also represents a clash between two generations of modern architectural historians.17
In contrast to Collins, whose primary concern as an architect and an architectural
historian remained the quality of the built environment, the work of Tafuri signalled the
moment when the rupture with modernist historiography became definitive. Tafuri took a
radical position even with respect to the sweeping revisions introduced by such historians
as Joedicke, Collins and Banham.18 Tafuri’s radicality was determined primarily by the fact
that he took his own position as an architect and an historian as the point of departure for
a radical reconsideration of the history of modern architecture. Although trained as an architect, Tafuri no longer wanted to work under this title. He found that his devotion to
history excluded the possibility of his being called an architect first and foremost. He not
only started to reflect upon historiography in a more extensive way than had ever been
done before, but also invented the theme of ‘operative history’ as the banner under which
its history was being written. In the aforementioned Teorie e Storia he wrote the following
passage, which has become famous in post-war historiography:
➛ What is normally meant by operative criticism is an analysis of architecture (or of
the arts in general) that, instead of an abstract survey, has as its objective the planning of a precise poetical tendency, anticipated in its structures and derived from
historical analyses programmatically distorted and finalised…19
What struck architectural historians about the historiographical survey put forward by
Tafuri was his fierce attack on this so-called ‘operative history’: ‘Operative criticism is an
analysis of architecture . . . that has as its objective the planning of a precise poetical
tendency ’ (Italics author). What Tafuri noticed in the historical writings of predecessors
such as Pevsner and Giedion was that their books were ordered and structured according
to a certain poetica. The plot of an architectural history could also be called its ‘poetics’:
the message that needs to be validated and ‘realized’ between the front and back covers
of a book, with the historical material carefully selected in order to match this purpose.
18 Reyner Banham (1922-1991) , an English aviation engineer and art historian, wrote among other works, Theory and
Design in the First Machine Age (1960) and Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment (1969).
19 Manfredo Tafuri, Theories and History of Architecture, London, 1980, p. 141.
21
In this sense, as Tafuri noted, the poetics of a modern architectural historian reflected the
poetics of the modern architect. The architect communicates by way of building: carefully
designing the work so as to make sure the proper message is conveyed. Just as the
architect carefully goes about the act of designing, so the historian will also meticulously
construct the historical argument. In this way, operative history was for Tafuri a precise
reflection of the practice of the architect. For him, the two activities were interchangeable, in so far as both could be seen as attempts at persuasion – in the case of the historian the goal is to secure a particular version of history in response to the architect who is
attempting to advocate a particular type of building. The task faced by the modern
architectural historian was to make the ‘working’ of a building clear, to analyse and to explain in a precise way what was happening within a building. For an architectural historian,
this was the essence of the profession: to communicate and make evident the different
layers and intentions of a building. If the architect viewed the design practice as part of a
larger ideological strategy to arrive at social betterment or even a liberated world – thus
giving testimony to the intimate relationship between modern architecture and social
20
The Dutch architectural historian Wies van Moorsel produced an interesting analysis of the Dutch architect Mart
Stam’s manipulation of the floor plans of houses by way of sliding walls and foldaway beds, for example, so as to
directly enforce a certain view of modernity upon people. Wies van Moorsel, ‘Volkshuisvesting: een kwestie van
aanpassing of vernieuwing?’ Nieuwste Tijd, 2, October 2001, pp. 49-61. The quote comes from Mart Stam, ‘De nieuwe
stad’, De Vrije Katheder, 1945, now published in ‘We vragen de kunstenaars kind te zijn van eigen tijd’ Teksten van
Mart Stam, pp. 124-125 (see note 9). Cf. Christian Norberg-Schulz, Meaning in Western Architecture, New York, 1981.
p. 199.
21 This is still a legitimate way to work for many architectural historians. For instance, a Dutch newspaper recently
reported the story of an architectural historian who had dedicated her thesis to a Dutch modern architect. Discussing
her motives for writing this monograph, she said: ‘My mainspring was the beauty of the buildings, their magnificence
or crushing impertinence, in short: all those aspects which in those days were only written about in an amusing
way’, ‘Verpletterend brutaal – Hugh Maaskant bouwde vooral robuust’, book review and interview with Michelle
Provoost by Hilde de Haan, de Volkskrant, 14 August 2003, p. 6. See Michelle Provoost, Hugh Maaskant, architect van
de vooruitgang, Rotterdam, 2003. Reflecting on Tafuri’s theme of ‘operative’ or ‘poetical’ history, it is striking that
modernism in architecture bears the characteristics of structuralism as defined in literary theory. In the 1930s, when
modern architecture was in full bloom, a movement called ‘New Criticism’ emerged in literary criticism. It was most
conspicuous in that it focused solely upon the structure of the literary object itself, at the expense of ideas, politics,
social and historical backgrounds. The practitioners of ‘New Criticism’ eliminated the context because they wanted
to study the structure of a book, not the mind of the author or the reactions of the readers. The New Critics were
the most modern branch of literary theory and I consider that their ideas are reflected in the practice of the modern
architectural historian. Architectural historians practice a sort of ‘thick description’ as analysed by Clifford Geertz:
a cultural sign that is interpreted so intensely that all its possible meanings are catalogued. For example, a wink of
an eye may be interpreted as a rapid contraction of an eyelid, but could also be the ‘burlesque of a friend faking a
wink’. See Clifford Geertz, ‘Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture’, in The Interpretation of
Cultures, New York, 1973. I am indebted to Professor Mary McLeod from Columbia University New York, Department of Architecture, for making me aware of the importance of New Criticism for architecture, particularly through
her course, ‘Contemporary Theory and Criticism of Architecture: Structuralism/poststructuralism, Postmodernism/
deconstructivism ’, Spring-Fall 1995.
22 Luisa Passerini, ‘History as a Project: An Interview with Manfredo Tafuri’, Rome, February-March 1992, pp. 38-39.
Now published in Any, ‘Being Manfredo Tafuri – Wickedness, Anxiety, Disenchantment’, no. 25-26, 2000.
22
progress – then the historian would underline this position through a careful analysis of
the building.20 In this sense, modern architectural historians are structuralists, a structuralism that becomes clear through this focus on buildings and buildings only.21 When Tafuri
wrote Teorie e Storia in 1968, he was convinced that this approach was no longer legitimate. Tafuri’s plea for an ‘anti-operative history’ may also be called a plea for an ‘antipoetical history’. With Teorie e Storia, the discipline of architectural history entered the
age of post-structuralism. In an interview, Tafuri explained the intentions that lay behind
this book:
➛ Thus I fought against the attitude of the critic who gets inside the work or submits
to the work. I fought against those who were trying to bend to the will of the work,
to enter into the work as an open construction, because they became so involved
that they had no historical detachment – neither from the work itself, nor from the
meaning of the work. I used to tell my students that they needed to learn to love and
hate the work at the same time.22
Tafuri claimed that architectural historians could no longer speak the language that is
spoken by the building and could no longer do what the building wants them to do.
This message deeply shocked the world of architectural historians, who felt they had
been attacked right at the heart of their intended task. It was an attack on their passion.
The Italian architectural historian Bruno Zevi – a colleague of Tafuri’s – wrote a furious
review entitled ‘Myths and Resigned Historiography’:
➛ The critics who believe in some ideal are accused of distorting history, of forcing
it to their purposes in view of an action to be carried out in the culture of today. We
must debunk all the masters: this is the magic slogan. But without a guideline, without a method for making choices, history becomes an arbitrary sequence of events,
perhaps brilliant and sparkling, but certainly incapable of inspiring and promoting.23
Internationally, the astonishment was even greater. Was this harsh criticism really coming
from Italy, the cradle of architectural culture, the country in which architecture had such
an important position? The book Teorie e Storia dell’architettura prompted many questions, for Tafuri himself as well as others. What preoccupied Tafuri after the publication of
Teorie e Storia was the question concerning the social position of the non-operative historian. It was now clear to him that architectural history could no longer support the Modern
Movement automatically. Connected to this insight was the notion that this movement
should no longer be considered to be homogeneous – as the Modern Movement – but
rather as a heterogeneous and contradictory ensemble – as being many Modern Movements. Previous historians had been engaged in the elaboration of a construct of their
own consciousness when speaking of the Modern Movement as a grand and unified
‘construction’. It was now the task of the critical historian to see the reality of the Modern
Movement as a constellation of often diverse ideologies; as a jumble of thoughts and
ideas inside the head of the architect. However, did this mean that a direct social engagement on the part of the historian had to be exchanged for the proverbial ivory tower?
23 Bruno Zevi, ‘Miti e rassegnazione storica’, editorial of L’architettura storia e cronache, 155, September 1968.
The quote is derived from the English abstract of the article.
23
It was not so simple for Tafuri. If the Modern Movement is considered to be a constellation of phenomena that are primarily ideological in character, what should be the position
of the historians themselves, considering the fact that their work also belongs to the
sphere of ideology? How can they remain critical, while being ideological agents
themselves, with respect to the ideological configuration that is studied? For Tafuri,
historians have to assume a detached position while recognizing that they are a part of the
world they study. After a Pevsner and a Giedion, it was the task of historians not to throw
out the baby with the bath water. The challenge for Tafuri was to transform an initially
unproblematic engagement into a new sense of responsibility, one that avoided both the
clichés of crude indifference and uncritical passion.
What are the consequences of Tafuri’s work for the discipline of architectural history?
If architecture with its tangible modern and postmodern appearance plays a symbolical
role for the humanities in general, then what are the consequences of Tafuri’s architectural history for history writing in general? These are the central questions behind this
book. With my dissertation I hope to provide impetus to the debate concerning how
historians of architecture can deal with their intellectual and disciplinary past.
A NEWSPAPER OBITUARY
Manfredo Tafuri died on Wednesday, 23 February 1994 in Venice. Over the following days,
almost all Italian newspapers, both local and national, reported his death. Il Gazzettino,
the local Venetian newspaper wrote: ‘And here the news hit us like a bolt from the blue,
while the institute was preparing for the inauguration of the academic year, planned for
Saturday. The principal, Marino Folin, immediately decreed three days of mourning and,
also in the light of the mourning, postponed the ceremony of inauguration.’ 24 In the
Cultura supplement of the Marxist newspaper l’Unità, the literary critic Alberto Asor Rosa
– Tafuri’s former collaborator – wrote a short obituary starting with the following lines:
➛ Manfredo Tafuri has been without doubt one of the most important historians of
architecture of this century: for certain periods and for certain authors, certainly the
24 ‘E qui la notizia è arrivato come un lampo a ciel sereno, mentre l’istituto si preparava all’inaugurazione dell’anno
academico in programma per sabato. Il rettore Marino Folin ha immediatamente decretato tre giorni di lutto, e, sempre in segno di lutto, ha rinviato la cerimonia dell’inaugurazione.’ Roberta Brunetti, ‘Architettura in lutto – rinviato
l’inaugurazione dell’ anno academico’ in il Gazzettino, Thursday, 24 February 1994, p. 11.
25 ‘Manfredo Tafuri è stato senza alcun dubbio uno dei più importanti storici dell’architettura di questo secolo: per
certi periodi e per certi autori, di certo il più importante. La qualità preziosa inimitabile delle sue ricostruzioni e
consistita nella capacità di mettere insieme e unificare la pazienttissima, infaticabile, talvolta certosina attività
archivistica e documentaria con la genialità e la complessità del progetto interpretativo . . .’ Alberto Asor Rosa, ‘Fu un
grande certosino dell’immaginario’, in l’Unità, 24 February 1994, p. 4. L’Unità newspaper dedicated an entire page to
the death of the historian. The architectural critic Andrea Branzi wrote the main article while Asor Rosa wrote a short
article under the heading ‘Ricordi’.
26 Gae Aulenti, ‘Un artista della critica’, la Repubblica, 24 February 1994.
24
most important. The precious and inimitable quality of his reconstructions consisted
of the capacity to tie together and to unify the very patient, at times monk-like,
archival and documentary activity with the geniality and complexity of the interpretative project …25
Most headlines tried to capture what was considered to be the ‘essence’ of Tafuri’s work
in a few words. Thus, Gae Aulenti refers to Tafuri in la Repubblica as ‘an artist of criticism’
and on that same page Tafuri’s friend, philosopher Massimo Cacciari, was paraphrased as
saying: ‘He saw the universe as a philosopher.’26 In the comments there is a tension
between those who see Tafuri foremost as a theoretician and those who praise Tafuri for
his craftsmanship as an historian. For Cacciari, the fact that Tafuri based his analysis of
architectural details on a vast horizon of general knowledge made him part of the tradition
of the greatest Italian philosophers, from Gentile to Garin. A journalist of the Italian newspaper la Repubblica wrote: ‘The historian of architecture who died yesterday in Venice has
defied modern nihilism to recover the sense of history and of the city.’ In l’Unità the architect and critic Andrea Branzi put Tafuri in yet another perspective:
➛ Manfredo Tafuri represented very well the passage that came about starting at the
end of the 1960s in Italian culture; a leap of quality produced by a new generation of
architects, who emerged from the student conflicts with new mental instruments
and from a new political dimension. They were the carriers of a new, vast and problematic vision of the project that no longer recognized itself in the linear development of an optimistic and rationalist modernity that was already in decline.27
Branzi writes that Tafuri’s work began with the insight that an orthodox conception of
modernity – linear, optimistic, rational – was no longer convincing. As a consequence of
this conviction, Tafuri demonstrated that architectural history could benefit from the new
analytic disciplines which arose during the 1970s: literary criticism, semiotics, neo-Marxism, for example. However, from Branzi’s comment we may further deduce that this was
not his sole achievement. With his oeuvre and with his intellectual presence, Tafuri proved
that architectural history stood at the very centre of these debates. It is in this sense that
we should read the following quote by Branzi:
➛ The choice of Tafuri to declare himself – after a short juvenile season as an
architect working for Ludovico Quaroni – a theoretician and radical historian, has
27 ‘Manfredo Tafuri ha rappresentato molto bene il passaggio avvenuto a partire dalla fine degli anni 60 nella cultura
italiana ; un salto di qualità prodotto da una nuova generazione di architetti, che emergeva dalle lotte studentesche e
da una nuova dimensione della politica con nuovi strumenti mentali. Portatrice di una visione vasta e problematica del
progetto, e che non si riconosceva più nello sviluppo lineare di una modernità ottimista e razionalista già al declino.’
Andrea Branzi, ‘Tafuri, l’architettura come forma sovrana’, L’Unità, 24 February 1994.
28 Ibid., ‘La scelta di Manfredo Tafuri di dichiararsi (dopo una breve stagione giovanile di progettista presso Ludovico
Quaroni) ha coinciso con il superamento definitivo della vecchia critica esthetica dell’architettura alla Bruno Zevi . . .
e anche dei grandi e geniali bricolage di Leonardo Benevolo, per fornire negli anni 70 a tutta la cultura internazionale
del progetto una ben diversa caratura teorica, e una coscienza di se stessa come protagonista autorevole di un grande
dibattito storico e civile.’
25
In memoriam Manfredo Tafuri
coincided with the final overcoming of the old aesthetic architectural criticism in the
style of Bruno Zevi . . . and also with the grand and brilliant bricolage of Leonardo
Benevolo, providing to the entire international architectural culture in the 1970s a
very different theoretical framework, and a self-consciousness as authoritative protagonist in a grand historical and civil debate.28
Here Branzi refers to Tafuri as ‘a self-consciousness as an authoritative protagonist in a
grand historical and civil debate’ defining the extent of Tafuri’s development since he first
published his famous Teorie e Storia dell’architettura in 1968. In la Repubblica,
Gae Aulenti described the paradigmatic value of this book in the following words:
➛ In 1968 Teorie e Storia dell’architettura was published, where Tafuri postulates a
complete and totally new point of observation for the criticism and history of
architecture . . . Tafuri puts forward for the first time two subjects with precise and
necessary responsibilities: the architect who has to courageously regard its actual
crisis and the historian and critic who has the task, truly not simple, to make that
crisis rational and conscious.29
Both in Italy and further afield, Tafuri became best known for his plea for a non-operative
architectural history – the idea of an autonomous discipline not developed to serve the
architect. However, Tafuri also wrote some very fine histories, for example, about the
Renaissance of Rafael and Giulio Romano; about Alberti and Michelangelo. In 1983 he
published, together with A. Foscari, a micro-storia called L’armonia e i conflitti. Two years
later, he published the book Venezia e il Rinascimento, which was followed in 1992 by
Ricerca del Rinascimento. In this respect, Alberto Asor Rosa praises Tafuri’s craftsmanship as an historian. Asor Rosa characterizes Tafuri’s histories as a series of grand
constructions, based upon ‘patient, tireless’ work in archives but also upon the ability to
give a clear interpretation of complex material without losing track. The philosopher
Massimo Cacciari presented the most insightful analysis of the historiographic qualities of
Tafuri claiming that his craftsmanship as an historian was at the same time an illustration
of Tafuri’s philosophical position. He suggests that Tafuri became convinced that he could
only express a certain theoretical position by using the instruments of the discipline of
history. According to Cacciari, the most valuable aspect of Tafuri’s historical practice is
present in the simultaneous elaboration of studies about the Renaissance and modernity
which offer a continuous oscillating movement between, for instance, studies about the
29 ‘Nel 1968 esce Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, dove Tafuri pone un completo e nuovo punto di osservazione
della critica e della storia dell’architettura: un lavoro assolutamente geniale. Al dibattito cultural e afrchitettonico e
urbanistico Tafuri propone per la prima volta due sogetti con responsabilità precisa e necessaria: l’architetto che
deve guardare con corraggio la propria crisi e lo storico e critico che ha il compito, davvero non semplice, di rendere
razionale e cosciente quella crisi.’ Gae Aulenti, ‘Un artista della critica’, la Repubblica, 24 February 1994.
30 ‘Ha lavorato sul Rinascimento e nello stesso tempo sulla modernità. Direi che nel suo continuo va e vieni tra
Umanesimo, Rinascimento e modernità, da Sansovino al saggio La Stela e il labirinto [sic], sta il parte migliore del
suo lavoro. Non solo perchè non credeva ad un’antitesi moderno-antimoderno, ma perchè anche qui si nasconde un
problema filosofico: quello di trovare nell’Umanesimo le radici delle nostre inquietudine.’ Cacciari, ‘Vedeva l’universo
come i filosofi’ , la Repubblica , 24 February 1994.
27
architect Jacopo Sansovino and Le Corbusier: ‘Not only because he did not believe in the
antithesis modern-antimodern, but also because here a philosophical problem hides itself:
that of finding in Humanism the roots of our anxiety.’30
As previously stated, most of the newspaper articles are written by colleagues –
architects, critics or historians – and take the form of tributes to Tafuri, consequently,
an explicit critical tone is lacking. This may be expected from homage paid to a recently
deceased historian, however, to some extent the obituaries also continue a tendency to
idealize Tafuri. Does this mean that Tafuri’s career was without controversy and without
debatable aspects? Tafuri became notorious for his decision in 1980 to leave the field of
modern architecture behind and to dedicate his time exclusively to historiography and
meticulously elaborated studies of older architecture. As a result, Tafuri’s career is often
described as consisting of two phases: that of a younger, more radical Tafuri, and that of
an older, more conservative Tafuri.
In fact, Tafuri’s decision puzzled many of his colleagues and followers. Was this a radical
shift of focus? Did it mean that Tafuri considered the first part of his career a failure? If this
were so, how could it be reconciled with the previously acquired insights; with the value
of economic, social and political criticism for architectural history and, of course, with the
critique of ideology? What fuels this picture of Tafuri is a one-sided manner of thinking
about architectural history in which it is forced into a rigid order of periods and phases and
is considered to be the outcome of successive ‘periods’ and ‘decades’. Ideas are
conceived of as unities within the cycle that makes up such a unit of time. They are
reduced to cultural phenomena that characterize a certain period. Outside such a period,
there can be no life for the idea reduced to cultural phenomenon.31 In the case of Tafuri,
this led critics to a kind of pseudo-criticism that was not based on the contents of his
work, but only on his presumed being out-of-date; his belonging to a decade that, like a
fashion-item, had become ‘old fashioned’. It is equally the case that the confusion about
the ‘turn’ in his career stems from this attitude, for the suggestion is that if Tafuri was the
figurehead of 1970s architectural criticism, how could he simply move on to another body
of thought without being guilty of at least inconsistency and perhaps even moral betrayal?
However, the reality is that while Tafuri was preparing his famous studies about the
architecture of the Weimar Republic and the artistic avant-gardes in the 1960s, he was
equally as engaged in the renewal of studies about the Renaissance that was evolving
31 My contention is that such a way of thinking reveals a Hegelian and linear conception of history where cultural
phenomena are instruments used by the Geist to demonstrate its presence. They are not autonomous, rather they are
always an expression of something else which lies beyond them. In this way, ideas reduced to cultural phenomena
serve to demonstrate the spiritual cohesion of a period. In contrast, I propose thinking of ideas as fragments that
are never fulfilled, never finished or completed, but that in different circumstances and conditions undergo different
transformations.
32 André Chastel (1912-1950) wrote, among other books, Renaissance méridionale: Italie, 1460-1500, Paris, 1965,
which Tafuri studied while preparing to write Teorie e Storia dell’architettura. See also Jean-Louis Cohen, ‘La coupure
entre architectes et intellectuels, ou les enseignements de l’italophilie’ p. 229.
33 See Howard Burns, ‘Tafuri and the Renaissance’, in Casabella, special edition: ‘The Historical Project of Manfredo
Tafuri’, January-February 1995.
28
during that period. Tafuri not only read Wittkower’s Architectural Principles in the Age of
Humanism (1949; Italian edition 1964) and Ackerman’s Michelangelo (1961; Italian edition
1964), but also books by the French art historian André Chastel. As Cohen confirms, in
Teorie e Storia he introduced the Nouvelle critique of Roland Barthes into the field of
architecture, at a time when Barthes did not yet have the intellectual status he came to
enjoy in the 1970s and 1980s in France, let alone in Italy. These were sources that were
less obvious for an architectural historian.32 In 1980, when he decided to focus mainly on
Renaissance themes, he maintained his concern about present society and about the
developments in contemporary architecture. In particular, Tafuri was increasingly
disillusioned about the marginalization of architecture as a meaningful cultural element in
historical accounts. His studies of Renaissance architecture were meant as a kind of
counterpoint to this, focusing on a period when architecture formed an integral part of
culture – when its language was public and widely understood.33 Tafuri was not the proverbial ‘child of his time’. He struggled with the period in which he lived: he identified with
certain parts of it while rejecting others. Yet the image of Tafuri that remains dominant in
his international reception is that of being ‘old hat’: Tafuri as the phantom of a period that,
to our great relief, resides for ever in history.
TAFURI’S RECEPTION: THE THIRTY-YEAR ITCH
➛Aldo van Eyck: Therefore, if Tafuri is present, I would like to tell him that I detest
him, and even more I detest that which he writes; that he is profoundly cynical, up
to the degree of horror, of nausea… Humanism has only just begun. And an architect
is a humanist or not an architect at all.
➛ Manfredo Tafuri (from the audience): …I think that it is perhaps necessary to make
the discourse more precise on the relationship between architecture and institutions… That is to say, what is completely closed off is the way of language as
communication of messages, which is the humanist discourse…34
This ‘passionate loathing’ exhibited by the Dutch modern architect Aldo van Eyck is an
example of the strong reactions that Tafuri evoked among his audience. Tafuri was considered a guru; as the object of repulsion, or as a polemical partner in debate. However, in
each scenario, he forced his interlocutors to show their true colours and to identify their
position. Tafuri stimulated architects and historians to formulate what they stood for;
34
This rather unpleasant encounter between Tafuri and the Dutch architect Aldo van Eyck occurred during the opening of an exhibition that was organized as a part of the Venice Biennale of 1976. The exhibition was called: ‘EuropaAmerica, Centro storico-suburbio’ (Europe-America, historical centre-suburb). In the Palazzo del Cinema at the
Venice Lido a discussion was organized among the architects-participants, concerning the question: Quale Movimento Moderno? (Which Modern Movement). Two years after this event, the discussion was published in a monograph,
Franco Raggi ed., Europa/America: Architetture urbane, alternative suburbane, Venice: la Biennale di Venezia, 1978, pp.
174-182, p. 179. The American architectural journal Oppositions published a commentary by Peter Eisenman on this
encounter and in that same issue Oriol Bohigas published an essay on ‘Aldo van Eyck or a New Amsterdam School’,
Oppositions, 9, 1977, pp. 19-36.
29
to express the idealistic and ethical presumptions of their profession. This discriminatory
effect was largely due to one book: in 1973, Tafuri published Progetto e Utopia, Architettura e sviluppo capitalistico, as a ‘saggio tascabile’, a paperback, published by Laterza.35
Although Progetto e Utopia became a sort of ‘red bible’ for a community of students in
upheaval – see for example the history of the Dutch students in Delft during the 1970s –
its precise contents were not so easily digestible for large parts of the architectural world,
be they national or international, right or left-wing. On first impression, Progetto e Utopia
follows on from Teorie e Storia, in the sense that it presents a completely different kind of
book about architecture and its history. Most histories of modern architecture either
provide an explanation of the works of modern architects or a historicization obeying
chronological laws, though they are sometimes both, for example, Tony Garnier and the
Industrial City 1899-1918, or Adolf Loos and the Crisis of Culture 1896-1931.36 However,
in Progetto e Utopia Tafuri presented a series of essays in which architecture did not
appear according to a chronological sequence; it was now the exemplification of an
ideological démarche. The most salient characteristic of the book was that Tafuri did not
offer any explanation of the work of architects. For example, he chose to ‘clarify’ modern
architecture by speaking, in a declamatory tone, of ‘the formation of the architect as an
ideologist of society’ or ‘the persuasive role of form in regard to the public and the
self-critical role of form in regard to its own problems and development’ as the ‘recurrent
themes of the “Enlightenment dialectic” on architecture’.37 After a difficult and long sentence, no explanation followed: Tafuri simply stated his message.
Whereas Tafuri, in Teorie e Storia, had addressed the architectural historian, partly as a
form of self-criticism, in Progetto e Utopia he turned his gaze to the architects. He now
expressed one of the most radical statements of his career: Progetto e Utopia contained
the hypothesis that the course of capitalist society would condemn architecture to
sublime uselessness. This greatly shocked a national and international public and subsequently has engraved Tafuri upon the collective memory as a ‘negative thinker’ or as a
‘prophet of the death of architecture’.
➛ Ideology is useless to capitalist development just like it is harmful to the point of
view of the worker: after the elaborations of Fortini in Verifica dei Poteri, of Tronti, of
Asor Rosa, of Cacciari, we think it is superfluous to resort once again to the Deutsche Ideologie to demonstrate this.38
35 Manfredo Tafuri, Progetto e Utopia, architettura e sviluppo capitalistico, Bari, 1973.
36
The example is taken from Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture: a Critical History, London, 1980. Notably, Tafuri also wrote a review of Frampton’s history of modern architecture, in Kenneth Frampton ed., ‘Modern Architecture and the Critical Present’, Architectural Design Profile,1982 (special issue dedicated to the
position of the architectural historian Kenneth Frampton); Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Architecture and Poverty’ pp. 57-58.
37 Manfredo Tafuri, Architecture and Utopia, Design and Capitalist Development (English translation of Progetto
e Utopia, architettura e sviluppo capitalistico) Cambridge Mass., 1976, p. 3.
38 ‘L’ideologia è inutile allo sviluppo capitalistico così come è dannosa al punto di vista operaio: dopo le elaborazioni
del Fortini di Verifica dei Poteri, di Tronti, di Asor Rosa, di Cacciari, pensiamo che sia superfluo ricorrere ancora una
volta alla Deutsche Ideologie, per dimostrarlo.’ M. Tafuri, Progetto e Utopia, Premessa, p. 4.
30
Progetto e Utopia was created in the context of an outspoken intellectual climate situated
on the Italian far Left which was intensely involved in the formulation of a new form of
militant Marxism. Its introductory chapter is interlaced with themes important to the
people in that environment, for example, Tafuri’s reference to the essay Verifica dei poteri
by the critic Franco Fortini. However, the ‘tragedy’ of Progetto e Utopia is that very few
people outside Italy understood these references and the precise intellectual climate
in which they were formed and as a consequence, Tafuri’s intentions became
caricatured.39
The ghost of Aldo van Eyck remains present in the reception of Tafuri. Even today, more
than thirty years after the publication of Progetto e Utopia, Tafuri still ‘itches’.40 In the year
2000, the Design Book Review – an American architectural journal– published a special
issue on the theme: ‘Humanism and Posthumanism’.41 The work of Tafuri, alongside that
of Massimo Cacciari and Francesco Dal Co, was analysed from the perspective of posthumanism. As Martin Jay, an American professor in history comments:
➛How, we might wonder, should we build in this unforgiving environment? How can
we live in a present that takes no consolation in restoring the past or creating a
different future?42
39
An exception is the essay by Tomas Llorens, not so much in his discussion of Tafuri and Cacciari where
Llorens develops a neo-Kantian critique of the work of Tafuri and then accuses him of solipsism, rather in the
description of their intellectual environment, especially in the first pages of the essay. As a motto, Llorens used
a poem by Fortini: ‘And in that sound you can’t discern the song / Of flying snow in vanishing ways or winds /
From the perennial chatter of the spring / Dark inside you, that vague dark wave of nothingness.’
We may recognize a reproach to solipsism here, but leaving this aside the reference to the work of
Fortini in relation to Tafuri is appropriate. Tomas Llorens, ‘Manfredo Tafuri: Neo-Avant-Garde and History’ in
D. Porphyrios ed., Architectural Design Profile, On the Methodology of Architectural History, 1981, pp. 83-95.
40 From the perspective of the history of Tafuri-reception there is one study that I want to mention in particular.
This is the thesis written by Jean-Louis Cohen, ‘La Coupure entre architects et intellectuels, ou les enseignements de
l’italophilie’, In Extenso, recherches à l’école d’Architecture Paris-Villemin, 1, 1984. Apart from the analysis of Tafuri,
this is an important book for its methodology. It was the first time that architectural history after 1945 was written
as a comparative history between countries – as the history of exchange and of intellectual transfer. In this respect
it is indicative that the point of departure for this study is not formed by buildings alone, but by the broader ‘architectural culture’. See also J.L. Cohen, ‘Transalpine Architektur, der französische Italianismus zwischen 1965 and 1980’,
Archithese, 4, July-August 1988, pp. 67-73, special issue ‘Viva la France.’
41 Hilde Heynen, ‘The Venice School, or the Diagnosis of Negative Thought’, pp. 23-39 in W. Littman ed., ‘Humanism and Posthumanism’, Design Book Review no. 41/42, Winter-Spring 2000, California College of Arts and Crafts,
San Francisco..
42 Martin Jay, book review of Architecture and Nihilism: On the Philosophy of Modern Architecture, by Massimo
Cacciari, ibid., p. 97. This issue of Design Book Review contains an extensive section of book reviews. Books like The
Dancing Column: On Order in Architecture (1996), by Joseph Rykwert, or Hitchcock’s The International Style (1932)
appear under the heading ‘humanism’. Cacciari’s Architecture and Nihilism belongs to the category of posthumanism
according to the editors of this issue, alongside, for instance, The Architecture of Deconstruction: Derrida’s Haunt,
(1993) by Mark Wigley.
31
There seems to be an insurmountable difference between those who see the architectcreator as the cornerstone of an anthropocentric world and those who believe that the
role of the architect today is more modest. In a humanist vision of architecture, architects
build for a better world. Modern architects specifically build for an even better world.
To a certain extent, the intention to control and improve the human environment has
always been central to an ‘enlightened architecture’. After the War, from the late 1950s
onwards, a crucial phase regarding the establishment of a consensus about the potential
of architecture began in the Western world. There was an important debate circulating
within neo-Marxist circles: what was the heritage of Marx and how should he be
understood in a changed world? While the revisionists stated that despite capitalist
development, human values such as freedom and individual growth remained central to
our Western culture, the revolutionary Marxists believed that capitalist development was
in its ultimate consequences directed against humanity. In the dialectical process, the
values of humanism were viewed as phenomena that would be overcome. This schism
among neo-Marxists had a great influence upon the thinking about architecture. During
the 1960s, an influential group of architects and critics appeared who combined a continued belief in the values of modern architecture with an interest in the Frankfurt School; in
philosophers such as Horkheimer, Adorno and Habermas.43 This resulted in the conviction
that social reality could benefit from the social sciences, including, in this case, architecture, and that the social sciences ought to be shaped by social reality. From this
perspective, Tafuri’s plea for a non-operative historical analysis – for an analysis that does
not act upon reality – could only appear blasphemous.
The most recent reception of Tafuri shows an interesting combination of elements.
There is, among most authors, an intense awareness of ‘our’ post-structuralist and
postmodern age.44 However, despite this broader intellectual climate, there is a continued
belief in the potential of architecture. In fact, most architectural historians have a passion
for architecture. In 1999, the Greek historian Panayotis Tournikiotis published The Historiography of Modern Architecture.45 In the introduction he declared:
➛Inherent in this approach is an interest in contemporary architecture that I would
not repudiate. The architect’s exploration of the territory of the history and theory of
architecture cannot be separated from his interest in the creation of new architectural objects – an interest which, in one way or another, lies at the starting point of his
thinking.46
43
See, for example, the humanism that pervaded the discussion within the team X group, coming from participants
such as the architectural couple Peter and Alison Smithson or the Dutch architect Jacob Bakema. See also the
theoretical work of the English critic and historian Kenneth Frampton.
44 Where the postmodern condition entails a critical attitude towards the possibility of telling one true story, or
developing a single master narrative, post-structuralism can be seen as the theoretical formulation of this condition.
Influenced by Nietzsche, post-structuralists are sceptical about the possibility of liberation through reason. Modernity, which intellectually began with the Enlightenment project to describe the world in rational, objective and empirical
terms, ended with the arrival of this movement. See J. Dancy and E. Sosa eds., A Companion to Epistemology, Oxford,
1992, pp. 78-79 and p. 140.
45 Panayotis Tournikiotis, The Historiography of Modern Architecture, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999.
46 Tournikiotis, The Historiography of Modern Architecture, Introduction, p. 19.
32
Consequently, most architects and architectural historians continue to have an agenda,
even in an era in which Lyotard proclaimed the end of grand narratives. The aesthetic passion for a certain kind of architecture cannot be separated from an ethical passion. Also in
1999, Hilde Heynen published the book Architecture and Modernity, a Critique, in which
she discussed ‘The School of Venice’, consisting of Tafuri, Cacciari, Dal Co and others.
In the introduction she confirmed that architecture in our postmodern world is no longer
able to solve the problems of society. However, architecture remains a meaningful practice, according to Heynen, as it plays an important role in the articulation of society’s
contradictions.47
What is curious about these examples of late Tafuri-reception is that, despite our age of
post-structuralism and the end of grand narratives, Tafuri is today perhaps less digestible
than ever. Tafuri might have been considered as the apex of postmodernity, but his reception remains coloured by a certain struggle and by those ‘for’ and ‘against’. This tension
can be understood to a certain degree by remembering what Tafuri said about the intentions behind Teorie e Storia. Tafuri declared that he was fighting against those critics
whose identification with the work that they discussed, and with the ideas and convictions behind the work, led to a lack of historical detachment. In contrast, Tafuri told his
students to ‘love and hate the work at the same time’.48
The Historiography of Modern Architecture is one of the most influential surveys of the
subject written in the last few years. In this work, Tournikiotis may also be considered to
represent the most recent view on Tafuri. He uses a methodology in which the voices of
the French post-structuralist climate resonate:
➛ I wish simply to examine the discourse of the historians of modern architecture,
a historical discourse which, paraphrasing Foucault, I take to be a discursive practice
that systematically forms the objects of which it speaks.49
Focusing on the histories written between the 1920s and the 1960s, Tournikiotis questions ‘the relationship of architecture to its history.’50 To answer this question, he employs
47
Hilde Heynen, Architecture and Modernity, a Critique, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999, Introduction, p. 7:
‘For if architecture is not able to design a brave new world in which all our problems are solved, neither is it doomed
to just give in to impulses stemming from societal developments in which it has no say whatsoever. It is my belief that
architecture has the capacity to articulate in a very specific way the contradictions and ambiguities that modern life
confronts us with. In this articulation it can generate a sense of involvement with as well as critique of modernity.’
See also the anthology, H. Heynen et al., eds., ‘Dat is architectuur’: Sleutelteksten uit de 20e eeuw’, Rotterdam, 2001,
in which Tafuri is again presented in the context of the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory, and not, interestingly,
in the context of Foucault or Lyotard. Note also that such thinkers as Derrida and Lacan are excluded from the book.
48 ‘So I fought against the attitude of the critic who gets inside the work or submits to the work. I fought against those
who . . . became so involved that they had no historical detachment . . . I used to tell my students that they needed
to learn to love and hate the work at the same time.’ Luisa Passerini, History as a Project: An Interview with Manfredo
Tafuri, Rome, February-March 1992, pp. 38-39. Now published in Any, ‘Being Manfredo Tafuri – Wickedness, Anxiety,
Disenchantment’, no. 25-26, 2000. See above p. 16 of this book.
49 Tournikiotis, The Historiography of Modern Architecture, Introduction, pp. 4-5.
33
a deconstructivist method derived from the illustrious thinker Jacques Derrida – Tournikiotis aims to ‘deconstruct the concept of modernity by means of its own historiography’.
From this choice of analytical method an important consequence follows: that Tournikiotis
treats the historical texts as objects, ignoring the biographical backgrounds of the historians in question and, instead, focusing exclusively upon his texts in terms of their ‘démarche’ and their ‘discursive formation’. We may actually hear the echoes of Derrida and
Foucault in this approach, for example, Foucault’s notion of ‘the death of the author’.
However, perhaps there is also something else going on, something which would still
mark Tournikiotis as a modernist, despite his flirtations with French intellectuals. At the
start of this introduction, I mentioned the typical modernist preoccupation with buildings
and texts as objects.51 ). For a modernist architect, the ‘message’ of a building is strictly
confined to the object itself. The architectural historian may also follow this approach,
aiming to mention all the possible materials, forms and messages of a building. Tournikiotis now transfers this method onto texts. Instead of buildings, he aims at a ‘thick
description’ of historical texts, trying to catalogue all the aspects that structure their
narrative. Tournikiotis appears to be an analyst who, on the one hand, no longer identifies
with the grand narrative around modern architecture, while on the other hand holding on
to its ideological assumptions. Mart Stam and Jacques Derrida are combined in one
method, so to speak. However, this identification only goes so far. To be sure, Tournikiotis
does not accept all the consequences of his Derridean reading strategy. There is a point
where he actually leaves the Derridean insights to go his own way:
➛ In general terms, the histories of modern architecture are based on the position
about the being of architecture, on a theory that takes the more or less clear form of
what-ought-to-be and usually projects what-ought-to-be-done.52
Tournikiotis takes these histories and what they represent very seriously. He treats the
analysed texts as fully transparent objects that, in an unproblematic way, refer to a reality
or a truth outside the text. Most histories of modern architecture are logocentric by nature
and Tournikiotis seems to accept this logocentricity in order to subsequently define their
precise contents.53
Tournikiotis is a representative of the architectural historian who is nourished by an
50 Quotes taken from: ibid., ‘Introduction’, pp.1-3.
51 See above, p.8.
52 Ibid., Introduction, p. 2.a
53 We may also note in this context Tournikiotis’s unproblematic combination of both Foucault and Derrida. There was
in fact a lot of tension between these two thinkers, which was a result of a debate about the implications of Foucault’s
Histoire de la Folie, published at the beginning of the 1960s. The point for Foucault was that, when ‘despotic reason’
occurs at a certain point in history, this also implies that things were different before that date. For Foucault, this was
a hopeful message. Derrida did not share this hope. For Derrida, the history of Western thought is governed by only
one form of reason. This thought transforms and changes identity throughout time, but we are still in the realm of the
one and the same rationality. In a way, Tournikiotis’s use of both Foucault and Derrida reflects the, by now evident,
problematic nature of the expectations behind modern architecture: is a different, better world still possible, or do we
remain in one and the same world? See R. Boyne, Foucault and Derrida, the Other Side of Reason, London, 1990.
34
authentic love for the discipline – he is a passionate historian. His interest in French
post-structuralism also seems to be authentic. It is just that the two are not compatible.
It is in this respect that Tournikiotis’s irritation with the epistemological structure of Tafuri’s
Teorie e Storia becomes of interest. Tournikiotis has little doubt about the explanatory
value of the texts that he analyses. His presumption is that texts fully explain their
contents, that they are intentionally didactic.There is, in other words, an unproblematic
relationship between the words on paper and the content of an argument. With a sense
of shock, Tournikiotis observes of Tafuri’s Teorie e Storia:
➛ Tafuri raises a whole host of questions – but his answers are elliptical, sometimes
overlapping, sometimes contradictory, and very often indefinite. No explanation
whatever, for example, is given of the three words that make up the title: ‘theory,’
‘history,’ and ‘architecture’ waver to and fro from chapter to chapter, without ever
arriving at a single distinct meaning…54
With what seems to be moral disapproval, Tournikiotis points towards the contradictions,
the lack of coherence, the non-conclusion, the overall ambiguity and distortion of the
book, in obvious tension with a deconstructivist reading method. It is no surprise then,
that Tournikiotis perceives Teorie e Storia not as the expression of an epistemological
choice by Tafuri, but as that of a weakness in thinking, even a problem:
➛ …Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, his first important book and one that was a bestseller despite its ‘labyrinthine’ structure and its more or less complete indifference
to the reader. The hermetic nature of the book accentuates the uncertainty and bafflement that prevailed at the end of the cycle of historical approaches to the
modern movement which we are examining… 55
The contradictory nature of the book, its ambiguity and distortions are for Tournikiotis an
expression, a manifestation of an underlying problem, which is a problem of Zeitgeist,
of the ‘end of a cycle of historical approaches to the modern movement’.56 However,
there is a great difference between viewing Tafuri’s ambiguities and distortions as the
expression of an underlying problem and viewing those ambiguities as the content of an
intentionally a-logical discourse. They don’t refer to an a-logical discourse, indeed they are
the discourse – they constitute the actual content of such a discourse. This is the difference between Tournikiotis and Tafuri.
ABOUT DIFFERENT TAFURI’S
➛ I have received Architecture, Criticism, Ideology and I thank you sincerely…
However, I have the impression that you have fabricated a Tafuri who is a little too
different from the one that I know… I realize that I am not easy to schematize, but if
54 Ibid., chapter 7, ‘History as the Critique of Architecture’, p.194.
55 Ibid., p.194.
56 Ibiz.
35
American culture wants to understand me, why not make an effort to abandon facile
typologies (Marxism, negative thought, etc.)? Another thing that strikes me is that
those who write about me in the USA never put things into their historical context:
1973 is not 1980 and not 1985… I hope that these confused clarifications of mine do
not offend you: they are written only to demonstrate how distant the personage that
you have constructed is different from the one who lives, changes every day, and
works as an historian by profession (not an historian of architecture, but also an
historian of architecture)…57
After sending Tafuri a copy of Architecture, Criticism, Ideology, a book which included a
substantial essay about Tafuri called ‘Critical History and the Labors of Sisyphus’, the
American architectural historian Joan Ockman received this letter from Tafuri. Ockman
wrote her essay on the occasion of a symposium organized by the Manhattan Institute for
Architecture and Urban Studies, an important platform for American progressive architects and critics in the 1970s and 1980s, and where Tafuri was extensively studied. However, as confirmed in his letter, Tafuri felt that he had been quite lost in translation by his
American colleagues – another example perhaps, of what the American literary critic Harold Bloom called The Anxiety of Influence. 58
Manfredo Tafuri also received a considerable reception in the Netherlands. In the 1970s,
this coincided with the rise of the student movement and their call for didactic reform at
the universities. In Delft, at the architectural department of the Technical University, and
in Nijmegen, at the art history department of the Faculty of Arts, the work of Tafuri was
studied within the context of protest against the authoritarian and superseded methods
of research and instruction. The architect was required to become aware of the social
context of design; architectural history had to bring itself down from its ivory tower and
become a social and socially engaged science. It is within this environment that a reassessment of architectural history in the Netherlands was instigated. At the same time, the
progressive architectural historians had to fight several demons. For example, and this
was not unique to the Netherlands, there was the conservatism of many art historians,
who proved resistant to virtually any innovation, a resistance that has contributed to an
increasingly deepening rift between art and architectural history so that nowadays we can
speak of ‘two cultures’. Today, more than thirty years later, it has become clear that the
attempts to innovate on a methodological and theoretical level have, for a large part,
failed, leading the Dutch architectural historian Ed Taverne to state that, as a consequence,
architectural history never developed into a critical science.59 As early as 1984, Taverne
gave a very critical lecture at the annual meeting of Dutch art historians, held at the
57 The letter dated from April 29th 1985 and was published in: Casabella, no. 619-620, January-February 1995,
p. 67. See Joan Ockman, ‘Critical history and the Labors of Sisyphus’, in Joan Ockman et al., eds., Architecture,
Criticism, Ideology Princeton Architectural Press, Princeton, 1985.
58 The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies was founded by the American architect and theoretician
Peter Eisenman in 1970. For the reference to Bloom see Joan Ockman, ‘Venice and New York’, in Casabella, 619-620,
1995, p. 59 and note 13. 58 The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies was founded by the American architect and theoretician Peter Eisenman in 1970. For the reference to Bloom see Joan Ockman, ‘Venice and New York’,
in Casabella, 619-620, 1995, p. 59 and note 13.
36
Cartoon published in Any, Being Manfredo Tafuri, 2000
recently renovated Dutch palace Het Loo. Taverne questioned whether the almost servile
way in which the art historical styles of the palace had been reproduced was not indicative
of the rigidification of the art historical discipline. While on the one hand, Taverne argued,
art history in the late 1960s had gone too far in exchanging intrinsic art historical value for
societal considerations, during the following decades, art history had largely isolated itself
from society. As a consequence, the annual day of art historians was not being held in an
exciting new art museum in a Dutch city, but in the rural quiet of a perfectly conserved
environment.60 One year earlier, in 1983, the Dutch architectural historians S.U. Barbieri,
Hans van Dijk, Jan de Heer, Henk Engel and Roy Bijhouwer published a book called Architectuur en planning. Nederland 1940-1980, in which they tried to revitalize modernism
through a careful examination of the planning procedures used during the post-war
reconstruction of the country.61 While the humanities experienced, in the passage from
structuralism to post-structuralism, the most definitive farewell to modernist arms,
architects made the opposite move in a return to the glory of the modernist years. Nowadays, ‘neomodernism’ and ‘supermodernism’ mark Dutch contemporary architecture.
This could not but further weaken the already vulnerable position of Dutch architectural
history. For while the return to the highpoints of modernism might be a valuable strategy
for architects, this was certainly not the case for the historians, who, after a Manfredo
Tafuri, or a James Ackerman, or a Jean-Louis Cohen, simply could not consider, nor make
such a strategy plausible. Somewhere midway through the 1980s, architectural history in
the Netherlands became increasingly isolated, being unable to follow the intellectual
changes in the humanities or to live with the design-oriented strategies of architectural
formation. While in the 1970s architectural history failed to conquer an autonomous space
and to emancipate itself in this way, in the 1980s it equally failed to find accommodation
with either one of the associated disciplines. This then amounts to the present worrisome
state of a discipline: homeless, and also unable to stand independently on its own feet.
In terms of self-reflection and the critical assessment of the discipline, America has
performed better than the Netherlands. In March 1982 a group of architects and critics in
New York City organized the aforementioned symposium with the name ‘Architecture and
Ideology’, the proceedings of which were later published as Architecture, Criticism,
Ideology.62 This conference was the result of a frequent coming together of a group of
people to discuss the theme of ‘architecture and politics’. They discussed the meaning
59
See for instance this statement by Ed Taverne: ‘Project and Design also marks in a certain sense the end of the
turbulence in Delft. A critical history of modern architecture, in Tafuri’s spirit, has neither in Delft nor elsewhere in
the Netherlands been carried through.’ E. Taverne, C. Wagenaar, ‘Tussen elite en massa, 010 en de opkomst van de
architectuurindustrie in Nederland’, introductory essay, H. Oldewarris, P. de Winter eds., 20 jaar 010: 1983-2003-20
years 010: 1983-2003, Rotterdam 2003, p.10.
60 E.R.M. Taverne, ‘Oproep voor een revisie van de beoefening van de kunstgeschiedenis in Nederland’, now in Akt,
kunsttijdschrift, 4, 1984, pp. 4-15. See, for example, the absolute lack of interest shown by Dutch art history in the
American philosopher Hayden White, who in 1973 published Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in NineteenthCentury Europe, a book which became a hallmark in the historiography of the historical sciences, Hayden White,
Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe, Baltimore, 1973.
61 S.U. Barbieri et al., eds., Architectuur en planning: Nederland, 1940-1980, Rotterdam, 1983.62 Joan Ockman et al.,
eds., Architecture, Criticism, Ideology, Princeton, 1985.
62 Joan Ockman et al., eds., Architecture, Criticism, Ideology, Princeton, 1985.
39
and social impact of architecture and urbanism, for example, through the revision of the
plans for the urban space of Manhattan, a total nouveauté in architectural culture in those
days, as the authors in the accompanying publication confirm. It was also within this
context that the work of Manfredo Tafuri was discussed. In the quote used to start this
section, we saw Tafuri’s reaction after Joan Ockman sent him the publication:
➛… I have the impression that you have fabricated a Tafuri who is a little too different from the one that I know…
Tafuri seems to have a point when he warns Ockman to not simply interpret him
according to such categorizing labels as ‘Marxism’ or ‘nihilist negative thought’. In asking
‘why not make an effort to abandon facile typologies’, Tafuri seems to be hinting at an
approach of a history which is more concerned with categories than with the historical
phenomena that hide behind those categories. He continues, stating that ‘Another thing
that strikes me is that those who write about me in the USA never put things into their
historical context: 1973 is not 1980 and not 1985’. This excerpt from Tafuri’s letter
illustrates the complexity of Tafuri’s reception and interpretation.
In this dissertation I will try to present an interpretation of Tafuri that avoids the pitfalls
which he highlights: simplistic categorization and the extraction of historically complex
phenomena from their proper context. In the background to this remains the question of
the identity of a discipline whose future is presently perhaps more at risk than ever.
The question this study addresses is how, more than eight years after his death,
the historiographical value of Tafuri’s contribution to architectural history can be assessed.
The point of departure for this study is the insight that Tafuri’s reception has been
inadequate. In contrast to the image that has arisen from the history of Tafuri’s reception
so far – a Tafuri different from the one he knew, so to speak – I propose a reading of Tafuri
that combines a broadness of vision with a profundity in interpretation. In this book Tafuri
is historicized: he is extensively placed in a context, in terms of both the history of architectural history as an academic discipline and in terms of the cultural history of contemporary Italy. Tafuri’s development and crises, his strong and his weak points, his failures and
successes, are seen from the point of view of what may be called a ‘contextual intellectual history.’ The spearheads of my study are formed by Tafuri’s books about architectural
history and by his job as a professor in architectural history and head of the architectural
historical department in Venice. A lifetime of initiatives, a lifetime spent constructing,
which began precisely at the moment when Tafuri decided to no longer be an architect.
63
I have borrowed the concepts ‘community’ and ‘voice’ from my sister Hanneke Hoekstra, who wrote her dissertation about a Frysian female author called Ypk fan der Fear. She based the concept of ‘voice within the
community’ on a study undertaken by the American psychologist Carol Gilligan (1982). Gilligan wrote about the
different language, or ‘voice’, used by women to express themselves and to speak about their lives. In contrast,
my use of these labels is more pragmatic: they summarize the two intentions of this book and they point to the value of
contextualizing knowledge about Tafuri. I thank my sister Hanneke for contributing to this insight, especially through
the book The Orthodoxy of the Heart, Faith, Fryslân and Feminism, Groningen, (Estrik 74) 1998.
40
In the first part of this book I will present a biographical introduction to Tafuri,
emphasizing his ties with a community of Italian left-wing intellectuals and his place, as an
architect, in this community.63 Drawing on the exceptional oral history interview with the
Italian historian Luisa Passerini, I hope to evoke an intimate image of Tafuri’s youth.
In Chapter Three I will discuss the context of the rise of architectural history as an
academic discipline at the Sapienza University in Rome – the university where Tafuri
studied architecture. In Chapter Four I will offer an analysis of Tafuri’s first activities as a
young urban professional after his graduation as an architect. In this chapter, I will also pay
attention to the intellectual influences which informed his ideas during these initial
years.
The second part of this book is devoted to an analysis of Tafuri’s mature work,
which started after he had written Teorie e Storia, and after he had found his ‘voice’ in
architectural history. In Chapter Five I will proceed to place Tafuri’s new career as a professor in architectural history in the context of the Italian protest movement in the 1960s.
In addition, I will discuss in this chapter the activities of Tafuri and his team of researchers
while forming a new department of architectural history at the architectural university of
Venice. Finally, in the epilogue, I will try to provide an – always provisional – answer to the
question of the value of Tafuri’s contribution to architectural history.
This study encompasses the period 1936-1994, the life span of Tafuri. By exploring the
complex ties between life and history writing; political, cultural and intellectual choices,
and community, I want to illustrate how the history of a discipline is determined in the first
instance by the social, cultural and intellectual biographies of the historians who give
shape to it.
41
CHAPTER 2
ON THE CONVERSION FROM ARCHITECTURE TO HISTORY
Most architectural historians would find it unusual to explain the relationship they have
with their object of study. Such matters of personal attachment or preference are not
often revealed in architectural historical studies, possibly because of a fear of damaging
the academic status of the work. In the same way, interpersonal relationships between
one architectural historian and another are very rarely the subject of official architectural
historical discourse. The one exception to this unwritten rule occurs with the death of a
highly respected architectural historian. On such occasions the texts that are written – the
obituaries and tributes – reveal a whole new world of the interaction between architectural historians – meetings at conferences, dining together, planning trips and so on.
Suddenly an entirely new vista opens up, which shows us not only a new image of the
deceased, but also the rituals that surround a discipline. In the case of Manfredo Tafuri,
the existence of such material sheds a whole new light on the man and his work, and is
especially important as he remains a central figure in the debate about the discipline of
architectural history and its possible directions. A good example of this continuing
influence is that, in the year 2000, six years after Tafuri’s death, the American architectural journal Any dedicated an entire issue to the legacy of this controversial historian.1
Within the context of the silence maintained by most architectural historians with
respect to their daily lives, Luisa Passerini’s extensive interview with Tafuri was unique.
The interview was part of an oral history programme organized by the Getty Center for
the History of Art and the Humanities, and the UCLA.2 What makes this programme
1
Any: Being Manfredo Tafuri: wickedness, anxiety, disenchantment, ed. by Cynthia C. Davidson, 25-26, 2000.
The goal of this issue was to develop a more critical and distanced view of Tafuri, as a critique of the hagiographic character of the initial studies of him. See also in this respect the title of the issue: ‘Being Manfredo Tafuri’
indicates, in an ironical way, that it is no longer possible ‘to be Tafuri’ mimetically, as a literal continuation of his legacy.
This unique personality and his legacy cannot be replicated.
2 ‘The Art History Oral Documentation Project’, undertaken as a collaboration of the Oral History Program of the
University of California, Los Angeles and the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, Los Angeles,
1993. The interview originally appeared as an unpublished document called ‘La storia come progetto’, ‘History as Project’ held by Luisa Passerini in 1993, pp.1-145. The interview was published for the first time in the above mentioned
issue of Any dedicated to Tafuri. See Luisa Passerini, ‘History as a Project, An interview with Manfredo Tafuri’, Any:
Being Manfredo Tafuri: wickedness, anxiety, disenchantment, ed. by Cynthia C. Davidson, 25-26, 2000. Importantly, however, the published interview is an abridged version of the original transcript. The verbal character of the interview,
the sense of a Tafuri speaking about his life, does not survive in the published version.
3 The American Oral History Association describes oral history as a method of gathering and preserving historical
information through recorded interviews with participants in past events and ways of life. What is important is that
this form of history is not collected through the written word and that it deals with people’s memories – with ‘the
living history of everyone’s unique life experiences’. It is thus that in this specific project, Tafuri spoke extensively
about his professional life and events during his childhood, as a way ‘to examine the development of art history as a
professional discipline’. See the webpage of the American Oral History Association at:
www.omega.dinkinson.edu/organizations/oha/, or the British Oral History Society at www.oralhistory.org.uk.
43
special is that its subject is the historians themselves – they have become the ‘historians
of their own history’.3 Oral history, combined with historiography, provides new insights
into the development of architectural history as a professional discipline.
The written report of the interview mentions that it took place in the apartment of a
friend of Tafuri’s in Venice, on 10 February 1992, and 28 March of the same year. All in all,
Passerini spoke with Tafuri about his life for more than three hours.4 It was no coincidence
that it was Luisa Passerini (1941) who conducted the interview. In an article some years
later, Dutch historians characterized Passerini as ‘an alert woman, politically engaged,
a radical lefty, with a long career in oral history and the history of social movements.’5 Both
Tafuri and Passerini were historians who had been through a phase of intense political
involvement in the 1960s and 1970s. For both, this period heavily influenced their
intellectual work, their ideas being formed within the context of the idiosyncratic Marxist
groups that dominated the Italian left-wing debate throughout the 1970s. At the beginning
of the 1970s, while Tafuri started to write ‘radical’ essays about the history of architecture,
essays that carried names such as ‘La forma come utopia regressiva’ and ‘Dialettica
dell’avanguardia’, Passerini assembled a corpus of oral histories.6 For example, in the
1970s, she started a project in which she gathered recollections of the fascist era by
interviewing workers in Turin.7 This was ‘history from below’, unspoilt by bourgeois
science. Oral history became a form of direct, unmediated contact with the players in
history. Passerini later wrote a remarkable autobiography called Autoritratto di Gruppo
(1988) in which she combined a contemporary reassessment of her revolutionary past
with a collection of oral histories of the ’68 generation. It is from the perspective of this
book that the assumptions behind the Tafuri interview become clear.8
For Passerini, the facts of one’s life are never self-evident and can only be explained in
relation to some external framework. An inescapable relationship exists between the
micro-history of personal life and the macro-history of society, through which the histories
of unique lives transcend the realm of the strictly personal. In the case of Tafuri,
the events of his personal life reveal something about the role of the intellectual in
modern Italian society. However, for Passerini, to interview someone who shared similar
4
‘History as Project’ – Manfredo Tafuri interviewed by Luisa Passerini, Art History Oral Documentation Project,
Los Angeles, 1993, p. 13. Henceforth ‘original transcript’.
5 ‘In liefde verenigd: het vitale Europa van Luisa Passerini’, interview, N. Randeraad, G. van Heteren, Nieuwste Tijd, 4,
maart 2002, pp.5-14, p. 6: ‘Passerini is een alerte vrouw, politiek geëngageerd, links radicaal, en met een lange staat
van dienst in oral history en de geschiedschrijving van sociale bewegingen.’
6 These are respectively, Chapter Two and Four of Tafuri’s book Progetto e Utopia, Architettura e sviluppo capitalistico,
Bari, 1973. To be sure, both Tafuri and Passerini went through a transformation at the beginning of the 1980s, from a
history that directly invested questions of politics to a more culturally oriented history. In this sense, they both took
part in the Italian version of the discussion ‘What is left of the New Left’.
7 Luisa Passerini, Torino operaia e fascismo. Bari, (Biblioteca di cultura moderna 894) 1984. Translated as:
L. Passerini, R. Lumley, Fascism in Popular Memory: The Cultural Experience of the Turin Working Class. Cambridge etc.,
(Studies in Modern Capitalism) 1987.
8 Luisa Passerini, Autoritratto di gruppo, Florence, 1988, translated as Autobiography of a Generation: Italy, 1968,
Hanover, N.H. 1996.
44
experiences throughout the 1970s carried an additional relevance. In fact, Passerini states
that for the generation of ’68 the nature of the relationship between the private and the
public sphere became particularly acute. This generation faced the challenge of reinventing themselves as subjects: in Autoritratto di Gruppo, Passerini speaks of ‘the ambiguity
towards the fathers’ and ‘the choice to become orphans’.9
The greatest virtue of Passerini’s interview with Tafuri is that it provides an alternative
way of understanding the work of this controversial historian, an alternative to a close
reading and an exegetical interpretation of his capolavori. This is why, in the following
biographical introduction to Tafuri, I have cited Passerini’s work.10 I have interpreted the
information Tafuri provides about himself to form my own reading of his life in the light of
a specific question. With Tafuri as the ‘historian of his own history’ I have tried to use his
account as an analytic tool to answer the question: how does an architect turn to writing?
More specifically, how does an architect come to the decision to abandon any engagement with architectural practice and become devoted solely to ‘non-operative’ history?11
CHILDHOOD: THE PROBLEM OF BECOMING UPROOTED
Three major influences determined the course of Manfredo Tafuri’s life. First, on an
existential level, there was the deep sense of solitude and isolation originating from his
childhood years, and the attempt to overcome this solitude both in a psychological and a
philosophical-political way. Secondly, from his adolescent years onward Tafuri displayed a
vivid interest in both philosophy and the visual arts. Finally, the difficult years of post-war
reconstruction together with the burden of recent history influenced his decision to focus
on those works of art that most faithfully mirrored the controversy and complexity of the
post-war Italian society.
9 These are the titles of a chapter and a paragraph, respectively. See Passerini, Autoritratto di gruppo, pp. 37 and 42.
10
For the biographical introduction to Tafuri, I have used two sources. Firstly, the original transcript of Passerini’s
1993 interview with Tafuri mentioned above. Secondly, the abbreviated version published in Any magazine, in 2000.
I have chosen these two documents, because they give the most information about Tafuri’s life, albeit with the qualification that it the information comes from Tafuri himself. To date, Tafuri’s personal archive has not been opened to
researchers or the public.
11 For the relationship between the historian and his writing also see the journal Historein, which dedicated its third
issue to the theme: ‘European Ego-histories, Historiography and the Self, 1970-2000’: Historein, a review of the past
and other stories, vol.3, Athens, 2001. Importantly, Passerini’s interview with Tafuri also gave rise to criticism. Some
of his students asked whether Tafuri, by giving this interview, had not confirmed his mythical image as a left-wing
researcher. For some, this is a ‘text to demolish’ given the fact that Tafuri mentions certain things about himself and
leaves out others. Remarkably, during a lecture given by Tafuri, students protested against his mythical image by
holding up a piece of cardboard in which Tafuri’s head was mounted on the body of Donald Duck’s Uncle Scrooge. The
placard said: ‘Tafuron de Tafuroni’, a wordplay on the Italian name of the uncle: paperon de’ paperoni. I thank Roberto
Zancan from the I.U.A.V. for this story.
12 Tafuri says in the interview: ‘Two very different personalities. My mother was very active, with some pretensions
to intellectual life. My father was just the opposite. He was an engineer employed by the Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici,
with no intellectual interests.’ Passerini, History as a Project’, p. 10.
45
Manfredo Tafuri was born on 4 November 1935 in Rome. The theme that dominates
Tafuri’s recollections of his youth is a twofold sense of solitude, arising from both a sense
of isolation within the family, and an external isolation due to the absence of companions
and others from whom to draw inspiration. Manfredo was the only surviving child of the
Tafuri family. It was a family with a troubled and traumatic history. Two of Tafuri’s brothers
did not survive childhood illnesses and a fourth conception resulted in a miscarriage.
When Tafuri was born his parents were already relatively old, his mother being over 40
years of age and his father 56. Tafuri recounts that his father and mother were two
profoundly different characters: his Jewish mother fostering an active intellectual interest,
while his father was a more introverted technician who Tafuri describes as having no
intellectual interests whatsoever.12 In addition, there was considerable tension between
his mother and grandmother concerning Tafuri’s Jewish upbringing: his mother preferred
a secular upbringing for her son, whilst his grandmother wanted her grandson to be more
actively aware of his Jewish identity. Although Tafuri was interested in Jewish religion and
customs, loyalty towards his mother prevented him from becoming more deeply
involved.
So, as well as a sense of solitude there is also a sense of a lack of unity. There is a
superficial oneness which on closer examination turns out to be split by the differences
between mother and father, and the frictions between mother and grandmother. Quite
apart from the difficult events of the war and the German occupation, Tafuri identifies
these differences within the family as being one of the most fundamental reasons for his
sense of solitude. This sense of solitude seems to have brought about an almost romantic
craving for roots, a need to belong somewhere, yet at the same time there is an awareness of being fated to a life of uprootedness. Tafuri considers this to be the psychological
motivation for his lifelong habit of commuting between Rome and Venice.13 It seems as if
13 In the interview, he says: ‘At that time, the problem was exodus. I never felt at home anywhere. It’s not by chance
that even today, I keep vacillating between Rome and Venice. I can vacillate on everything, yet I need a strong sense
of roots.’, Passerini, History as a Project, p. 13. By mentioning his commuting between Rome and Venice, Tafuri points
to the fact that, while working in Venice, he still lived part of the week in Rome.
14 As an adolescent, Tafuri read Sartre. In L’Être et le Néant (1943), one of Sartre’s major philosophical works,
he states that a free human being should acknowledge the constraints of his or her situation, of being in a particular
time and place, or of one’s physical or mental characteristics, before being able to transcend these constraints in a set
of particular actions. Unless the constraints are acknowledged, we cannot transcend them. What I want to indicate
with this theory is that it seems as if Tafuri had to struggle with an already given ‘transcendence’ – what he indicates
as being uprooted – which led him to subsequently struggle to be rooted in a specific situation. See Eric Matthews,
Twentieth- Century French Philosophy, Oxford, 1996, p. 71.
15 Literally, Tafuri says in the interview: ‘. . . perché la storia è radicante e sradicante per chi la fa’,
original transcript, p. 5.
16 ‘Gli mettici’, the spreaders of discord, referring to Italian-Jewish families.
17 ‘The world is in a deplorable state, you should only think of making money, of living well.’ Original transcript, p. 18.
18 ‘A terrible generation, of total idiots’. Tafuri says: ‘So there was solitude in my family, and also isolation on the
outside, because mine was a terrible generation of total ignorance. It was extremely difficult to communicate with
professors, because even if they listened to you, they always regarded you as an adolescent.’, Passerini, History as a
Project, p. 15.
46
he was caught up in an inescapable oscillation between wishing to be part of a certain
community, and the experience of an irrepressible inclination to break all these ties in a
movement towards an abstract and almost transcendent freedom.14 It is this psychological characteristic that led Tafuri to devote his energies to history: ‘because history is rooting and uprooting for those who practice it’.15 History can also be explained as a locus, a
community to be a part of. It is a community that both opens and closes a door for the
researcher, permitting a glimpse of the past and offering a momentary illusion of having
comprehended that past, whilst at the same time making it clear that from the perspective of the present, one is irreversibly estranged from the actuality of the past.
Manfredo Tafuri’s youth was set against the difficult years of the passage from fascism
to war and German occupation. He lived in the Via Giovanni Battista De Rossi, near Piazza
Bologna and Villa Massimo, the former German Academy, where a German command
post was housed. His first encounter with fear and death came when the entire zone
between Via De Rossi and Piazza Bologna was bombed. Miraculously his parental home
was the only one in the block that survived. This experience also contributed to the lifelong sense of exodus: of being simultaneously rooted and uprooted. After the implementation of the racial laws in 1938 Tafuri was subjected to discrimination, although the degree was lessened by a certain tolerance shown towards those of mixed race: ‘mettici’,
or troublemakers as they were called.16 The danger increased for the Tafuri family with the
German occupation of Rome. The family had to be separated and Tafuri was sent to a safe
house where he hid together with a deserter. In the event of danger they were concealed
behind a false wall or in the cellar, which was so humid that it caused Tafuri health problems for the rest of his life. He also tells us how a certain ‘political education’ was intertwined with these traumatic experiences: every so often he went home with his father to
listen to the illegal ‘radio Londra’ and he would question his father in an attempt to understand the complexities of the war. Perhaps as a result of these experiences, from the time
of his high school graduation and later as a university student, Tafuri bitterly reproached
his parents for their misplaced ‘agnosticism’: ‘Il mondo sta male, voi pensate solamente
a far soldi, a viver bene.’17 The origin of Tafuri’s engagement with politics, his desire to
take a clear position with respect to suffering in the world – an engagement that in the
years of his adolescence still followed a classical, Sartrian pattern – can be found in this
time.
FIRST ENCOUNTERS WITH A PHILOSOPHICAL AND ARTISTIC WORLD
Although solitude remained Tafuri’s constant companion, resulting in or perhaps created
from a profound introspection, during his youth it seems to have been especially painful
and unwanted. Apart from private problems, these grievous experiences also originated
from an ‘external solitude’ created by the difficult years after the war. Tafuri speaks of a
total absence of intellectual contact during the 1950s, through dreadful years in which he
failed to establish any connection with people of his generation. He uses strong words to
describe his own generation: ‘una generazione terribile, di cretini totale’.18 He also
mentions the difficulty of communicating with authoritarian teachers and professors, people who in theory at least, might have provided some sort of frame of reference.
47
Tafuri recalls the 1950s as being particularly oppressive in Italy, as a society marked by
a suffocating form of clericalism. However, despite these difficulties Tafuri managed to
identify some stimulating events occurring beyond Italy. Like stars in an otherwise
blackened sky, these points of contact found rare confirmation in a highly selective group
of students at secondary school and university. This leads us to understand the importance of Tafuri’s first encounter with the world of the visual arts and philosophy. He tells
us that during his years at secondary school he was a passionate listener to a radio programme in which the Italian philosopher Enzo Paci introduced the Italian public to the new
French wave of philosophy. Existentialism, which especially caught his attention, Paci
explained from Kierkegaard to Sartre.19
At this time, Tafuri became a voracious reader of philosophy. He recounts a summer
spent at the seaside resort of the Forte dei Marmi where he began to read the first Italian
translations of Sartre and Camus, published in 1951.20 Significantly, during that summer
Tafuri formed a group with other fellow students who similarly fostered certain intellectual aspirations and, as a result, he was introduced to Zevi’s Storia dell’architettura
moderna which the students studied on the beach. The book was initially introduced to
the group by Paolo Ceccarelli, who later became rector of the I.U.A.V. in Venice and
remained in lifelong contact with Tafuri.21 While Tafuri seems to have been a bit of an
Adrian Mole during his childhood,22 additionally, from around the age of 12, he also
developed a passion for the visual arts. He would spend each spare moment in the
Vatican museum reproducing the masters of Medieval and Renaissance painting:
Raphael, Titian, Correggio and Rembrandt. It is in the course of these artistic endeavours
that Tafuri was assailed by doubts about his own artistic ability. This reflected a certain
fear of failure and a craving for perfection that led him to ask: ‘Ma se io non arrivo a
dipingere come questi grandi, che dipingo a fare?’23 This childhood anxiety reveals
another reason for Tafuri’s devotion to history, seemingly a rather negative motivation,
19
Enzo Paci (1911-1976) a well-known philosopher in post-war Italy who had studied with Antonio Banfi. Paci was
representative of the neo-Marxist developments in post-war Italy: holding on to a certain Marxist orthodoxy while
also displaying a keen interest in international developments that were more post-Marxist than neo-Marxist in
character. Paci developed a philosophy of history in which events were more important than entities and the process
with all its relations was more important than the substance itself. In 1951, he founded the journal Aut Aut together
with the philosopher Thomas Kelso, which advocated a return to Husserl, a proclamation that influenced an entire
philosophical generation in Italy during the 1960s. Paci discussed many aspects of culture, which included among
others architecture. See Encyclopedia of Contemporary Italian Culture, ed. by G. Moliterno, London: Routledge, 2000.
20 Tafuri says in the interview: ‘It was right there. Yes! I remember a summer spent at the beach in Forte dei Marmi.
I must have been sixteen. I began to buy a huge number of books by Camus and Sartre in Italian.’ Later on in the
interview, he says: ‘I was fascinated by thought, and therefore the history of thought, philosophy – whatever I could
understand of it at the time’, Passerini, History as a Project, p. 11.
21 The I.U.A.V.: Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia, where Tafuri would also teach from the late 1960s.
22 I refer to Sue Townsend’s bestseller The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole aged 13 ¾, about the troubles of a young
adolescent boy with an intellectual passion for George Elliot. On the other hand, Tafuri’s aspirations were not so
unique against the background of the strong humanistic character of secondary school in Italy. At a rather early age,
the pupils were introduced to such heavy matters as history, culture, philosophy or the history of literature. At the age
of 16, they would have already read Céline, or Proust, as well as having to try to understand Kant and Hegel.
48
which suggests that an uncertainty about how to act oneself still allows reflection on the
action itself.24
During his adolescence, the philosophy of Sartre, Camus and Heidegger remained a
constant point of reference. While Tafuri was a pupil at grammar school, he was
introduced to Bruno Widmar, a professor of philosophy at the University of Bari. Widmar
also became a teacher at the Liceo Tasso in Rome, and through this connection Tafuri
became acquainted with yet another aspect of the kaleidoscope of innovative
philosophy.25 Manfredo Tafuri, who came from a petit bourgeois background,
was introduced to Marxism and Socialism by way of the alternative lessons organized by
Widmar in his garden. Widmar advised his young students to discard the common
philosophical handbooks and undertake a reconsideration of the history of philosophy
from Kant to Marx. As Tafuri recalls, Widmar did not speak of a revolutionary Marx, but of
a philosophical Marx who remained in the shadow of the Master, Hegel. For Widmar,
Marx was part of an historical development that started with philosophical icons such as
Kant and the philosophers from the time of the French Revolution. Widmar presented a
unified body of thought which, to Tafuri’s surprise, was not consistent with the ideas
expressed by Paci and the Existentialists.
However, besides this fascination with philosophy and the history of ideas, there were
the more realistic experiences of the shocks of post-war life. One of the most powerful
confrontations with modern, post-war architecture took place close to Tafuri’s home in
1951. The architect Mario Ridolfi, one of the protagonists of the reconstruction, designed
a controversial palazzo close to Tafuri’s parental home, on the ruined grounds of the Via
Giovanni Battista De Rossi.26 Tafuri had difficulty understanding this building, which
seemed to have been intentionally designed to portray ugliness. Ridolfi had also been
involved in the design of an innovative new residential quarter called il quartiere Tiburtino,
close to where Tafuri lived. This quarter was built in an emphatically populist style,
influenced by the neorealist tendencies in cinematography. These were to be the new
houses for the workers, but in his design of a palazzo for the bourgeoisie, Ridolfi seemed
to opt for an intentionally inelegant and unpleasant style.27 For the adolescent Tafuri,
already suffering from solitude and existential crises, who had just read the first Italian
translation of Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit, all these experiences hastened a growing sense
of the tragic nature of life.
23 ‘But if I don’t succeed in painting like these great ones, what will I paint?’
24 Literally, Tafuri says: ‘Perhaps that is the reason I became a historian. That is, not knowing what to do, what kind of
action to take, I chose to reflect on the actions of others.’, Passerini, History as a Project, p. 12.
25 Bruno Widmar is an Italian philosopher who became known as the founder of the philosophical and cultural review Il
Protagora, in 1959. He is still productive and in 1993, he published Introduzione alla filosofia della scienza, Bari, 1993.
26 The architect Mario Ridolfi (1904-1984) was a leading member of the MIAR, the Italian Movement for Rational
Architecture in the interwar period. The building that Manfredo speaks of is the Palazzo Zaccardi (1950-51), one of
the Roman apartment houses built by Ridolfi after the war. See for an analysis of these apartments Sergio Polano
e.a., Guida all’architettura moderna del Novecento, Milano 1991. For an analysis of neorealism in Italian post-war
architecture, see Maristella Casciato, ‘Neorealism in Italian Architecture’, in Anxious Modernisms, Experimentation in
Postwar Architectural Culture, ed. S.W. Goldhagen et al., Cambridge, Mass., 2001, pp. 25-55.
49
Palazzo Zaccardi by Mario Ridolfi, 1950-51
UNIVERSITY YEARS
The decision to sign up as a student of architecture was determined by an intense desire
to become acquainted with a hitherto impervious subject. The young Tafuri, between
secondary school and university, was not able to ‘read’ or understand buildings.28
He had hoped to find the key to a proper understanding of architecture in Zevi’s Storia
dell’architettura moderna. From this book he learned to ‘read’ buildings by placing them in
their proper historical context, set apart from their aesthetic qualities. In the post-war
architectural environment the architect and historian Bruno Zevi (1918-2000) was a
personality who was hard to overlook. Through his intense involvement in many aspects
of the architectural profession, Zevi played a pivotal role in Italian architectural culture.
Besides the survey which made up Storia dell’architettura moderna (1950), Tafuri may
also have been familiar with Saper vedere l’architettura which Zevi published two years
earlier, in 1948. In this book Zevi showed himself to be every bit the teacher, with a didactic mission to explain the unique characteristics of architecture and urban planning to a
broad public. On the back cover of a 1993 reprint of the book this didactic fervour still
resonates: ‘Have you ever thought about your home, about the office, the school,
the cinema . . . Have you ever seen the spaces in which you live? Have you reflected on
the specific value of architecture, with respect to that of the other figurative arts?’29
It was Zevi’s intention to raise architecture from a mere technical discipline to an important element of public life. Architecture had to enter into the public domain and become a
topic of debate and thought. It had to take its place beside such things as important films,
books and music. Both history and criticism were important instruments needed to reach
this goal. As Maguolo confirms, where the ‘pioneers’ of modern architectural historiography avoided using the word ‘storia’ for their accounts, for example, Giedion and Pevsner
spoke of movements and not of ‘histories’, Zevi explicitly called his account The History
of Modern Architecture. Zevi had a conception of ‘history’ which functioned in strict
relationship to actuality – the events in the present receive their meaning from history and
only history is a guarantee of the existence of actual phenomena. In Zevi’s conception of
history the interrelation of the past and present, which is characteristic of the historiography of modern architecture, reaches a peak. Zevi, as well as Leonardo Benevolo as a case
in point, was influenced by Benedetto Croce in this attitude and in this proved himself to
be a typical Italian intellectual.30 Besides historicizing architects and their work, Zevi broke
new grounds by following a sociological approach in the interpretation of buildings – he
saw them as products of a specific time and a specific society and thereby rejected the
idea of the autonomy of the arts. 31
27 After the war, Ridolfi was the editor, together with Cino Calcaprina, of Il Manuale dell’architetto, in which the use of
cheaper, rougher, traditional materials was advocated and the virtuosity of the crafts was rehabilitated. The ‘intentional ugliness’ about which Tafuri speaks can perhaps be explained by the fact that Ridolfi saw this palazzo as a symbol
of the decadence of the middle class, a rejection which is perhaps also connected to a complicated recent past.
28 Passerini, History as a Project, p. 16.
29 ‘Avete mai pensato alla vostra casa, all’ufficio, alla scuola, al cinema . . . Avete mai visto gli spazi entro i quali
vivete? Avete riflettuto sul valore specifico dell’architettura, rispetto a quello delle altre arti figurative? Bruno Zevi,
Saper vedere l’architettura, saggio sull’interpretazione spaziale dell’architettura, Einaudi, 1948, reprint 1993.
51
During his architectural study, Tafuri would engage in fierce debates with his friends
about Zevi’s conception of history. However, because Zevi was a professor in Venice in
the middle of the 1950s, Tafuri only knew him at this time through his works. As we have
seen, even before this period, Tafuri’s enrolment in architecture at the university of Rome
was determined by the desire to ‘understand’ architecture. In November 1953 Tafuri first
enrolled at the Sapienza University of Rome and he recounts the shock that he experienced on entering the world of the academy. Tafuri had a passion for history and was thus
inclined towards the courses of letteratura artistica, given by Renato Bonelli, an architect
influenced by the work of Benedetto Croce.32 However, much more than the Crocean
tendencies within the faculty, Tafuri’s shock was caused by the realization that almost all
of the architectural staff had been and still were active supporters of the fascist regime.
After the epurazione, many of these architects had been able to return to their positions
at the university.33 In their professional roles, they were heavily traumatized by the events
of the 1930s and 1940s. As a consequence, there was a sharp distinction between
generations: a young, emerging generation of post-war architects and an older generation
carrying the burden of the past.
Significantly, Tafuri mentions the conduct of a professor in the history of art and
architecture:
➛ Professor of art history and history of architecture was Vincenzo Fasolo, another
fascist who, however, never came to class, and when he did come he would shout.
He never showed us any architecture, never taught history, would draw big diagrams
on the chalk board showing how stupid we all were, and would storm out.
This literally, though. That is, he made three scenes, you can’t say they were
lessons, in an entire year.34
Apart from the historical discipline, all of the professors connected to the core of
architectural education – professors of architectural design, drawing and so on – had a
fascist past. As Tafuri recounts, they almost never showed up and delegated their didactic
30 See, for example, Siegfried Giedion for whom the task of the architectural historian was to find in the history of
the past the starting point for the future. It was the even more extreme ‘instrumentalization’ of history by Zevi that
provoked a strong reaction from Tafuri. Tafuri accused Zevi of viewing history as an apology for the present: when it
is the present that ultimately counts, the historian can never show the less desirable, less ‘useable’ sides of history.
See S. Georgiadis, Sigfried Giedion: An Intellectual Biography, Zürich, 1989.
31 See Michela Maguolo, Le Storie dell’architettura moderna, typescript for the course Storia dell’architettura II,
Venice, 1993-94, pp. 74-81.
32 Renato Bonelli (Orvieto, 1911) was an architect who, during the 1930s, when studying architecture at the Faculty of
Architecture of the Sapienza University of Rome, opposed the fascist influence upon architectural design. Interested
in the renewal of the historical study of architecture, he turned to the aesthetic theory of Benedetto Croce. ‘Letteratura artistica’ is the name given to courses in aesthetics and the philosophical aspects of architecture. See Giovanni
Carbonara, ‘Renato Bonelli, storico dell’architettura e teorico del restauro’, V.F. Pardo, La Facultà di architettura dell’università ‘La Sapienza’ dalle orgini al duemila, discipline, docenti, studenti, Roma, 2001, pp. 113-131.
33 L’epurazione: the purification of fascist elements after the war. See Federico Chabod, L’Italia Contemporanea
(1918-1948), Torino, 1961, parte terza, capitolo prima: ‘La guerra e il crollo del regime fascista. La resistenza.’, pp.
103-143.
52
tasks to their assistants.35 As a consequence of the fact that many modern Italian
architects had collaborated with the regime, a new taboo had been created regarding
modern architecture and its history.36 Another effect of the fascist contaminated past was
that the academic staff tried to influence the architectural students to follow a nonintellectual, artisan approach. In particular, Tafuri remembers a Tuscan instructor called
Carlo Domenico Rossi who advised his students to abandon the books and embrace only
the pencil. Manfredo fiercely protested against this apolitical and non-intellectual approach
and threatened to leave the university if these conditions were maintained.37
URBAN PROTEST
It is at this point, when experiences at the university were proving to be extremely
disappointing, that an important Leitmotiv emerges. Tafuri wanted to organize protest
groups and by doing so he sought to unite his fellow students. In the first protest group,
organized in the early 1950s, were Giorgio Piccinato, Sergio Bracco and Vieri Quilici, all of
whom later became established members of the historical and architectural community
and, moreover, were to remain Tafuri’s lifelong companions. The goal of this protest group
was to counterbalance the official faculty policy line with respect to its ‘non-educative’
method. Significantly, Tafuri mentions that their political frame of reference was
comprised of the kind of partisan social criticism that was propagated by the political
journal il Mondo. Along with his friends, Tafuri was very interested in the criticism
expressed by Antonio Cederna in relation to the practice of post-war urban planning.38
That is, contrary to the policy set out by the architectural faculty in Rome, Tafuri and his
friends displayed a great interest in contemporary architecture, and understood this topic
explicitly within an urban framework. To regard modern architecture as part and parcel of
an urban fabric allowed an analysis that focused on what was politically important –
on which decisions were taken and on how this affected the city as a living place for the
populace.
In fact, Italian urban planning after 1945 could be characterized as a history of continu-
34 ‘Docente di storia dell’arte e storia dell’architettura era Vincenzo Fasolo, un altro fascista, che però non veniva mai,
e quando veniva urlava: non mostrava le architetture, non faceva storia, disegnava delle cornici alla lavagna dicendo
che ervamo degli imbecilli e andava via. Questo letterale però. Cioè ha fatto tre scene, non si possono chiamare
lezioni, in tutto un anno.’ See for the translation, Passerini, History as a Project, p. 17; original transcript, p. 14.
35 Ibid., p. 17: ‘The professors of the design studios, also fascists, would never show up for classes. Basically they
relied on assistants.’
36 See on the theme of collaboration Giorgio Ciucci, Gli architetti e il fascismo, architettura e città 1922-44,
Torino, 1989.
37 Literally, Tafuri says here: ‘What does it mean to abandon books? In fact, in the culture that these professors wanted to transmit there was a particular definition of the architect. Was he an artisan who studied Latin? No. For them,
he was an artisan who had only just learned to speak a little bit of Italian, only just.’ Passerini, History as a Project,
p. 17. We should realise here that the faculty of architecture at Rome had a specific tradition in treating drawing as an
epistemological method, which is discussed in the next chapter.
53
Il Mondo, February 1949, presentation Stalin Peace Award
ous failure. The challenges of reconstruction and the economic boom that followed were
not translated into adequate policies at either the local or national level. Certainly a factor
in this is that coherent and drastic political reform never took place after 1945. Furthermore, there was the excrescence of liberal laissez-faire politics, which led to building
speculation beyond any proportion, pacts with the Mafia, illegal building practice, and in
general the removal of the building industry from public control. In this context, Tafuri was
involved in the fight over co-ordinated urban plans, which took place in all the major cities
of Italy from the early 1950s until well into the 1960s. Urban planners often designed innovative plans, but tragically had to surrender their creative position when private and often corrupt enterprises almost always won out against public needs. The aggressive and
explosive atmosphere – disillusioned but still militant – depicted by Tafuri is also reflected
in Francesco Rosi’s film Le mani sulla città (Hands Over the City) about Mafia building
practices in Naples. Moreover, this atmosphere pervaded critical journals like il Mondo
and l’Espresso and in this context, Antonio Cederna, mentioned above, was an important
fighter against these corrupt urban practices. A campaign was launched against the building of a Hilton Hotel at the Monte Mario in Rome, which was a symbol of the power of
private business. Significantly, this fight became an emblematic defeat, as the building
was approved in 1958 and built in 1962.39 During this time, the major preoccupation of
Tafuri and his friends – who by now had formed a small group of fellow-combatants –
mirrored an archetypal way of thinking about the engagement of the intellectual:
‘Does an ethics exist that moves through human observation and participation, and is
directly connected with architecture?’40 Tafuri began to live through a classical conflict of
engagement in this way, reading scholarly books like Pierre Francastel’s Lo spazio
figurativo dal Rinascimento al Cubismo, and being fascinated by the type of high-culture
that was depicted there, while also spending time visiting the Roman borgate, with its
miserable living conditions.41
Protest is thus important for the young Tafuri and is expressed through opposition to
the authoritarian practice of schooling and education. In fact there was a growing
consciousness evident in a certain group of students who believed that in order to
become educated, they had to take the initiative and organize their own instruction.
38 Il Mondo (The World) was a political magazine founded in February 1949 by its editor-in-chief Mario Pannunzio and
a group of liberal democrats. It was known as one of the best examples of progressive journalism. Throughout the
1950s and the 1960s, Il Mondo became an active advocate of the civil rights movement in Italy, publishing critical
analyses of the government and its clientelist practices, the Catholic Church and its influence on society, and other
aspects of Italian culture and society. The journal closed in 1966 because of the death of Pannunzio. Antonio Cederna
(1921) was one of the collaborators on Il Mondo. He was originally an archaeologist who after the war became one
of the most intense critics of the urbanist strategies in large Italian cities, known for his aggressive and polemic
writing. For instance, he wrote books with titles such as: I vandali in casa (The Vandals in the House), Laterza, 1956;
and La distruzione della natura in Italia (The Destruction of Nature in Italy), Torino, 1975. In 1957 Cederna founded
the Italia Nostra Movement, for which Tafuri also worked every now and then. See A. Cederna, Mussolini Urbanista,
lo sventramento di Roma negli anni del consenso, Laterza: Bari, 1981. See also Jan Kurz, ‘Il Mondo’, Encyclopedia of
Contemporary Italian Culture, p. 374.
39 See John Foot, ‘Urban Planning’, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Italian Culture, pp. 613-616.
40 See Passerini, History as a Project, pp. 17-18.
55
Still from Le mani sulla città, 1963
They expanded their theoretical horizons using unusual resource material, in the first place
the work of the architect Ernesto Nathan Rogers, editor-in-chief of the famous
architectural magazine Casabella Continuità, which was in large part the mouthpiece of
the post-war debate about modern architecture. This magazine reappeared after the war
with its first issue in 1953, and its publication almost coincided with Tafuri’s enrolment in
the faculty of architecture. In 1951, along with Zevi’s Storia dell’architettura moderna,
another remarkable book was published. This was Walter Gropius e la Bauhaus by Giulio
Carlo Argan.42 Even more than Zevi, Argan had a major influence on Tafuri. In fact Tafuri
called himself a pupil of Argan ‘in a direct and indirect way’.43
For Giulio Carlo Argan (1909-1992) art was a form of social engagement, integral and
necessary to life. Architecture and urban planning were to him areas where the community had a particularly strong interaction with culture. However, while Argan devoted his
time chiefly to the history of art, in which he emphasized the social context,44 Tafuri appreciated Argan’s view of architecture as an integral part of the history of humanity and
his conviction that architecture was also a response to the human need for metaphysics,
for a world that transcends the mundane realm of the here and now. To accentuate architecture as a human and subjective event meant for Argan that architecture was not understood as an abstract expression of universal truths that existed apart from any human
involvement, but as part of the broader range of human cultural history. With Walter Gropius e la Bauhaus Argan had written a book that was very different from anything he had
published before. It was a book that was highly innovative for Italian architectural culture
at the time. Argan constructed a grand synthesis connecting the didactic programmes of
the Bauhaus to the intellectual movements that characterized Germany at the beginning
of the twentieth century. To relate the austere formalism of Gropius to German Protestantism was so new in Italy in the 1950s that it appeared almost hermetic. At the time,
Tafuri felt challenged by Argan’s speculations, being especially fascinated by the way in
which Argan connected Gropius’ message to the philosophy of Heidegger. However, as
Tafuri recalls, Walter Gropius e la Bauhaus was relevant to him most of all because of its
41
Tafuri refers to Pierre Francastel, Lo spazio figurativo dal Rinascimento al Cubismo, Torino, 1957. Francastel
(1900-1969) originally published this book as Peinture et societé: naissance et destruction d’un espace plastique:
de la Renaissance au Cubisme, Lyon, 1951. In another interview, Tafuri states that Francastel, alongside historians
like Pevsner and Giedion, was used by the academic establishment in Rome to confirm a modernist-progressive
cultural model. See Mercedes Daguerre, Giulio Lupo, ‘Entrevista a Manfredo Tafuri’, Materiales 5, PEHCH-CESCA,
Buenos Aires, 1985, p. 7.
42 G.C. Argan, Walter Gropius e la Bauhaus, Torino, 1951.
43 In the original transcript, p. 12, Tafuri says: ‘Quello che riuscivo a capire è un altro contatto, che per me è stato
essenziale perché poi sono stato suo allievo diretto e indiretto, e che è proprio Giulio Carlo Argan.’ Note that this part
is omitted from the English translation for the Any journal.
44 Argan’s major works include studies of Renaissance painters and architects such as Botticelli, Michelangelo, Fra
Angelico; occasionally he wrote about modern architecture and modern art. Around 1963 he became involved in the
debate about the ‘death of art’ by which Argan meant the end of the creative autonomy of the individual. From an
academic career at the University of Rome, Argan later made the switch to politics, first serving as a mayor of Rome
between 1976 and 1979 and later becoming a senator for the Communist Party. See Max Staples, ‘Argan’, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Italian Culture, pp. 27-28.
57
method. Argan did not speak of this period of modern architectural history in terms of the
single architectural genius but as a history consisting of groups of actors. This message
was of particular importance, and underwent a political translation by Tafuri and his friends
who then suggested that the current abusive practices within the building industry could
only be opposed by groups, not at an individual level.
Concerning the issue of method, Argan’s book was important in several ways. Within
modern architectural history, he focused on Germany during the Weimar Republic as a
significant place and time. It is here, Argan argued, that the event of modern architecture
became dramatic, explosive, and of influential and yet deeply contradictory importance.
The dramatic dimension of Argan’s Walter Gropius consisted in the link between the
German architectural culture during the 1920s and the fundamental philosophical issues
that characterized the decade. Argan wrote not only of the houses that were designed for
an Existenz minimum, but also of Heidegger’s Dasein. Tafuri recalls that Argan wrote a
history with a strongly anachronistic character, in which the decade between 1920 and
1930 is marked by the ‘ultimate’ attempt of reason to escape totalitarian clutches.45
The European history of reason was depicted as being in its ultimate phase of coming
face to face with its collapse and destruction. However, for Argan this was not because of
the intervention of the Nazi’s. Even apart from Hitler’s empire, the eventual downfall of
reason had been implicit in the history of the Enlightenment from the start. Reason bore
the seeds of its own decline within itself, Argan believed, and this thought impressed the
young Tafuri.46 Where Zevi depicted an optimistic ‘way out’ of the dramatic events of the
1940s, pointing to an American way of life and referring to the American architect Frank
Lloyd Wright as a model to be followed by European architects, Argan accentuated the
dramatically changing state of affairs in the twentieth century.
THE TECHNIQUES OF POLITICAL RESISTANCE
To become familiar with the world and to become familiar with the modern architectural
dimension of that world: this was the challenge for the student Manfredo Tafuri and his
friends. Therefore, between 1956 and 1961, they would spend the summer travelling
around Europe looking for modern and contemporary works of architecture, that,
in Tafuri’s words, ‘spoke’. They went to France to see the chapel at Ronchamp, designed
by Le Corbusier, and here Tafuri experienced what he regarded as an almost cosmic
drama, an event that he recognized in the works of Karl Barth and Kierkegaard.
There was an inevitable farewell to the optimism of the 1930s amongst the group, to an
45 See Passerini, History as a Project, p. 21, where Tafuri talks about his first reading of Argan.
46 With the decline of reason, Argan referred to the crisis of the ideals of Enlightenment. When Argan spoke of the
‘crisis of the great values of history’, he referred to the degree to which reason could give direction and stability to
human life. Rationality is no longer a divine guiding light, but a technique which may or may not be successful. This, according to Argan, was the reason why Gropius made the move from a hopeful rationality to a more sober pragmatism,
Argan, Walter Gropius e la Bauhaus, p. 12.
58
optimism that no longer seemed justified. They travelled to Scandinavia, to Germany,
to Vienna, not in search of elegant, aesthetical architecture, but in search of architecture
that ‘speaks’ with a violent, aggressive tone.47 To be sure, this was not an effort of a group
of diligent, respectable students deeply committed to their cause, but an act of rebellion
and protest against the isolationism in which the academic world had submerged itself vis
à vis modern architectural culture. Tafuri indicates that it is after these trips around Europe
that he arrived at the point where he ‘understood’ architecture.48 However, for Tafuri this
did not prompt a period of relaxation. The end of the ‘project’ of coming to grips with
architecture was followed by the next ‘project’ of gaining further understanding at a
political level of what was happening at the university and in Italian society at large,
and subsequently translating of this knowledge into resistance and protest.
In this way, when the first student protest at the Faculty of Architecture of the Sapienza
University of Rome started, Tafuri played a fair part in it. It was now 1958 and in reaction
to the decision of the government to introduce a university entry examination for
architects, architectural students occupied the university buildings.49 However, Tafuri and
his friends were not specifically interested in the reason behind the occupation. What was
more important to them was experimenting with a concrete strategy of resistance.
Therefore, they looked for an immediately available cause which could be used to create
a kind of domino effect. They searched for weak spots in the ‘chain of power’, through
which they might be able to awaken the ‘ignorant mass’ of the university population,
and also be able to turn the existing system upside down and create complete chaos.50
47
With this ‘violent, aggressive’ architecture, Tafuri refers to the architecture that gave evidence to the disillusionment arising after 1930s modernism. Le Corbusier’s chapel at Ronchamp is an important case in point. In this
work, the master goes beyond the rational modernism of his previous work. For critics of architecture, this step was
difficult to understand: should Ronchamp be understood as a break with architectural modernism? For Tafuri, what
was important was the crisis of rationalism expressed by this building: the collapse of the enlightenment dream of
providing people with a better life through the force of reason. The chapel at Ronchamp ‘speaks’ of other dimensions
of human being: a ‘space indicible’, giving evidence also of the dark sides of human being, dimensions that can not be
traced by the reductive language of logic. See Cesare de Sessa, ‘Le Corbusier e la dissonanza di Ronchamp’, 2002,
www.antithesi.info. Giornale di Critica dell’architettura.
48 Passerini, History as a Project, p. 22.
49 Tafuri’s activities during this period should be seen aga inst the background of the development of the university
during the years of reconstruction. Traditionally, the university system in Italy had been based on a strong individualism. This was due to an extremely centralized administrative structure on the one hand, and a total freedom
for individual professors within local institutes on the other. This situation prompted the widespread expression
baroni delle cattedre – chair barons. Professors easily felt threatened in their little paradises and so were inclined to
react against any introduction of collegiate bodies. In the years of the reconstruction, education was not a priority.
Around 1958, the time when Tafuri was studying at the university, things began to change. The number of students
rose dramatically and there were no substantial transformations to accompany this expansion. The fight that
Tafuri is caught up with in this period, is the confrontation between an archaic academia and a society which is
undergoing rapid changes and modernization. When the first post-war centre-left government came to power in
1962-63, a parliamentary committee was formed to initiate substantial reforms in education. See Giunio Luzzato,
‘University’, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Italian Culture, pp. 610-612; Mario Diani ‘Student movement’, ibid., pp.
565-566.
59
In an atmosphere of upheaval and dissatisfaction, Tafuri and his friends were looking for
intellectual instruments to achieve an insight, a rational comprehension of the political
forces that were actually in power.
The next wave of protest against architectural university politics occurred when Tafuri
was a little older. At the start of the 1960s, he had already completed his studies and had
one foot inside the university and the other outside. Direct action seemed to be even
more essential now and as a result of a bitter fight with Professor Saverio Muratori about
his Weltanschauung, the theme was not only ‘liberty of education’, but also ‘liberty of
acquisition’, seen as the liberty to decide what subject matter was appropriate.51 It is now
1963 and what followed was one of the longest university occupations before 1968,
lasting for sixty days. Students remained in the university buildings day and night.
The atmosphere was violent, as Tafuri recalls, partly because those in charge of the
Faculty of Architecture were not used to such extreme forms of protest. This is clear from
an anecdote told by Tafuri:
➛ . . . there was the secretary of the faculty who said: ‘Be aware that I will now call
the principal.’ I said: ‘Yes, you call the principal and you tell him.’ ‘. . . I will tell him
that you are scoundrels, and that I will now disconnect the electrical power.’ And I: ‘
Alright, you take away the electrical power, but then we will restrain you.’ Somebody
had brought along ropes, I remember. At the moment I don’t remember the name of
that secretary, but he was very amusing. So we all tied him up, no? We tied him up,
then we gave him the telephone, we dialled the number of the principal, his name
was Vincenzo Vasari, and we told him: ‘Speak please!’ And so you could hear that
old fascist on the other end stating his name promptly: ‘Grab the crowd!’ And he
said: ‘I can’t, they have tied me up.’ 52
Despite the violent, explosive atmosphere Tafuri also remembers it as an amusing period.
What was at stake during this battle was a demand for a change of curriculum – the
enforced renewal of the didactic system. The whole enterprise seems to have been
effective, for at the end of the sixty days the faculty came up with a peace offering which
involved implementing a change in staff. New professors were brought in who were
thought to be more progressive and appealing to the younger generation. As a result,
Bruno Zevi moved from Venice to Rome, Ludovico Quaroni came from Florence and Luigi
Piccinato also made the move from Venice to Rome. However, Tafuri and his group of
50 ‘The most important thing is that we were looking for pretexts, weak links in a chain, in order to effect disruption.
We used to say that we had a little bit of the whole world concentrated within the department.’ Passerini, History as
a Project, p. 22.
51 It is relevant to mention what Tafuri says about Muratori, because here the struggle also involves a certain view of
history. Tafuri says: ‘And we found that we had in front of us at a certain point Saverio Muratori . . . He was someone
unique, someone who had a strong intellectual resonance, someone who could really think . . . Muratori . . . was
against everything that was modern. This is the point. He thought that true modernity meant that everything should
start all over again. This was fascinating from a certain point of view . . . But Muratori was the person we wanted
to confront because he was invulnerable. He refused to talk with us because his way of thinking only functioned if it
remained closed to dialogue.’ Passerini, History as a Project, pp. 22-23.
60
friends were not satisfied at all with these staff changes and thought them merely
palliative. For while these academics may have adopted a certain innovative stance
twenty years before, they were now ancient history.
At this point, the group decided to leave the university and were resigned to taking no
further action, because they were convinced that nothing would change. An interesting
aspect of this polarized atmosphere of protest was the relationship between Tafuri and
those groups within the university that went under an explicitly communist banner.
According to Tafuri, the communist groups were very insular, moreover, there was a
substantial difference between their intentions and Tafuri’s attempt to renew the existing
curricula.53 For the communist groups, such proposals were irrelevant and, in the end,
useless. They had their eyes on something larger, and for this reason considered
themselves to be more explicitly political – political in a militant way. Tafuri recalls how
these people actually belonged to a certain élite within the teaching staff who always
remained at the level of assistants, and never possessing permanent positions within the
university. Architects like Carlo Aymonino, Piero Melograni, Michele Valori and Leonardo
Benevolo belonged to these groups. Their orientation was also more complex, as they
were called ‘left-wing Catholics’ or even ‘cato-communisti’. Tafuri had an ambivalent relationship with the communists: although on the one hand he had a certain esteem
for them – they were a fixed part of his frame of reference and constant partners in
discussion – he also distrusted them for their insularity and their unquestionable faith in
the Soviet Union.
Tafuri and his group of friends were at this time more attracted to a kind of terzoforzismo, an ideology of the third way, as proclaimed by political journals like il Mondo or
l’Espresso.54 One of the positive outcomes of this turbulent period was the fact that Tafuri
and his friends began to develop alternative courses to those offered by the university,
occurring under the banner of the self-organization of education. The first course meetings consisted of Tafuri and his four friends, who formed a kind of fixed nucleus.
Later, this group was expanded by those from the student community who appeared to
have a non-conformist attitude and an interest in the programme adopted by Tafuri and his
friends. The group was innocently called Gruppo Assistenza Matricole: a group estab-
52
‘. . . c’era il segretario di facoltà che disse: “Guardate che io adesso chiamo il preside.” Io dissi: “Si, chiami pure il
preside, e gli dica . . .” “Gli dico che voi siete mascalzoni, che adesso vi levo la luce.’ Ed io: “Va bene, Lei ci levi la luce,
però intanto noi l’incateniamo.” Qualcuno aveva portato delle corde, mi ricordo. Adesso purtroppo non mi ricordo il
nome di ‘sto segretario, ma era buffissimo. Allora noi l’abbiamo tutto legato, no? . . . L’abbiamo legato, poi gli abbiamo
dato il telefono, abbiamo fatto il numero del preside, che era Vincenzo Vasari, e dissi: “Parli pure!” E allora si sentiva
questo vecchio fascistone che dall’altra parte diceva appunto il suo nome: “Pigliali a calci!” E lui diceva: “Non posso,
mi hanno incatenato.”’ Original transcript, p. 28.
53 See Passerini, History as a Project, p. 24 where Tafuri mentions that he could not communicate with the
Communists.
54 L’espresso, one of Italy’s foremost news magazines, was founded October 1955 by Arrigo Benedetti and Eugenio
Scalfari. Like Il Mondo, the journal presented an aggressive, investigative journalism about topics such as corruption
by the Christian Democratic Party and clientelism. In the 1950s, it uncovered large scandals in the health and housing
61
Casabella Continuità, special issue about architectural schools, 1964
lished in order to aid those starting their university studies. However, the real agenda was
less innocent: they were committed to the idea of doing a better job than the university;
to counterbalance the ‘deformation of education’. They wanted to focus on all those
issues which had become anathema to the university hierarchy, principally the history of
modern and contemporary architecture. Consequently, in the Tafuri family home, or in the
house of a friend, seminars were organized in which certain themes in this field were
brought up for discussion. It is in this setting that Tafuri undertook his first efforts to
‘explain’ the history of modern architecture, perhaps as much to himself as to his student
audience.55
FIRST ‘PROFESSIONAL’ ACTIVITIES
After Tafuri had received his architectural degree he started to work with the same group
of friends with whom he had been studying.56 Tafuri recounts how he and his friends
rented a large apartment on the Viale Tiepolo in Rome. It was here that they came up with
an official name for their group: Associazione Urbanisti ed Architetti, which was abbreviated to AUA.57 The association was established with the aim of giving an official form to
their political activities. As an officially recognized association, they hoped to gain more
influence in the political-social environment of Rome. To be more precise, although they
knew they were only ‘little monsters’, lingering somewhere in the shadows, they wanted
to be able to voice an opinion within the large protest battles that were being fought in
Rome and on a national level. On the agenda of the association was the battle for political
reform in town and regional planning. At the start of the 1960s, the Tambroni affair had
just ended, leaving a delicate political atmosphere in which the first steps were taken
towards the possible co-operation, up to and including cabinet level, of centre and
left-wing forces.58 In this fragile atmosphere, the architectural profession organized itself
into large centre-left associations, that would be the trailblazers of a new future.
industries. Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, the journal kept its aggressive tone, dealing with controversial
and outspoken issues, such as terrorism – of which it was critical – and divorce and abortion. From the mid 1970s,
it became engaged in fierce competition with Italy’s other news magazine il Panorama. See G. Moliterno, ‘L’espresso’,
Encyclopedia of Contemporary Italian Culture, p. 203.
55 One of his students was a young Giorgio Ciucci, who later recalled how at six each evening after the university
classes were over, he went to the ‘student training centre’ where Tafuri would lecture in the history of the modern
movement. Ciucci remembers for example that Tafuri spoke of the Red House designed by Philip Webb for William
Morris, Horta’s Maison du Peuple, and the Bauhaus building by Gropius. Tafuri’s tone was not informative or didactic,
but polemical, seeking the confrontation with Zevi’s Storia dell’architettura moderna, G. Ciucci, ‘The Formative Years’,
Casabella: Il progetto storico di Manfredo Tafuri, 1995, p. 21.
56 For an indication of Tafuri’s study programme as a student of architecture, see Ciucci, The Formative Years,
pp. 12-25.
57 See Passerini, History as a Project, p. 25.
58 Fernando Tambroni was a Christian Democrat who briefly became head of government in 1960. This was because
the DC experienced an impasse in the formation of centre-based government coalitions. Tambroni offered a way out
63
The Istituto Nazionale di Architettura is an example of such an organization, however,
Tafuri and his friends did not agree with this new institute and accused its founders of
lacking integrity.59 The Istituto Nazionale di Architettura represented all those involved in
the different stages of the building process, from the building contractor to the architect.
However, the contractors and those in the building industry were the capitalist enemies
of the AUA and there inclusion was the reason for the accusations against the institute.
In response to the institute, the association of young architects and students of architecture wanted in their small way to give expression to the possibility of architectural
integrity in the midst of the heightened political battle.
With regard to housing and town and regional planning, complex issues were on the
political agenda of the national government. There was, at the beginning of the 1960s,
the formulation of the Legge Sullo, a law concerning town and regional planning,60
which stated that land should not be privately owned. Private interests could apply to use
a area of land but could not become its proprietor. The battle for the implementation of
this law was fought by another large organization, the Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica.61
Besides the political battle for a more just form of planning, the AUA remained involved
in the battles for university reform. At the beginning of the 1960s, the protests within the
Faculty of Architecture in Rome had become especially intense after provocation by
charging police had led to the death of a student called Paolo Rossi. This dramatic event,
which spread like a stain over the Sapienza University, caused a wave of protest with
regard to the oppression undertaken by the police and other authorities. What had already
been a difficult situation now reached an explosive stage with Tafuri and the AUA continuing to be indirectly involved in the battle. However, in general, the AUA was still a splinter
group. Whilst enjoying a certain amount of recognition in the world of architecture and
planning politics, the AUA nonetheless remained in the shadow of the big names. One of
these was another association, named SAU, the Società di architettura e urbanistica,
whose members included Leonardo Benevolo, Arnaldo Bruschi, Mario Manieri Elia, Carlo
by forming an authoritarian populist government supported by the neo-Fascist MSI-party. Tambroni gained a bad
reputation when strong police reaction to street demonstrations left several people dead. Tambroni was forced to
resign and the lesson for the DC was that right-wing governments were impossible. This opened the door for the
political left. See M. Donovan, ‘Fernando Tambroni’, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Italian Culture, p. 572.
59 The Istituto Nazionale di Architettura, abbreviated to l’In/Arch, was founded in 1959 by Bruno Zevi.
60 In the history of Italian urban planning since 1945, the fight for the implementation of the Legge Sullo constitutes
an important chapter. The Sullo reforms of 1962 were an attempt to force a ceasura in the dramatic history of urban
development to that date. Control of urban growth and planning were an important part of the law. It is telling that
the implementation of this law failed because of subversive actions by both the political left and right. Most of all,
there was a wave of hysterical propaganda from the right and also , a lack of will from the centre-left government.
The events around the Legge Sullo can be held to exemplify many attempts of urban reform in the years to come.
See the Mancini laws in 1967, the Bucalossi laws in 1977, and the Galasso law in 1985. See P. Ginsborg, Storia d’Italia
dal dopoguerra a oggi, pp. 368-369.
61 This was an older organization, founded in 1930 and known as L’INU.
62 In the history of contemporary, post-war Italy the extraparliamentary Left plays an important role. As a significant
political force, the extraparliamentary Left by and large covers the period between 1969 and 1976. Its origins can be
64
Melograni and Alberto Samonà. This was a more radical group, extreme left-wing and
communist in character, and although this organization was important for Tafuri and his
friends, they could never quite trust them. The difference between these two left-wing
groups was that while the AUA advocated pragmatic reform and the improvement of the
existing situation, the SAU seemed to be aiming for a more concerted grab for power – for
a revolution and the subsequent acquisition of professional instrumentalities. As has been
mentioned, Tafuri felt fundamentally uneasy with respect to such ideas.
The conception of architecture that arose from these and other activities was very
specific: architecture was now a relative fact, as a specific dimension of a general political
fight. During these years, architectural faculties were lively centres of student politics and
most architects regarded their profession as having strong political connotations.
This was due to a keen interest in the centre-left experiment, for which planning and building programmes served as standard means of implementing political power. In this
context, Tafuri cites the concrete activities of the AUA. For example, throwing stones at
the police escort of the Minister of Education, was to Tafuri exactly the same as studying
Le Corbusier or Gropius: both activities were part of the same project. However, after the
Tambroni affair Tafuri and the AUA became convinced that it was no longer possible to
undertake substantial political actions outside a political party. On the one hand, there was
the awareness that the problems were indeed huge, while on the other they had hoped
and expected that a resolution could be achieved. As such, it was important to be part of
a political party with a precise social programme. At the beginning of the 1960s, Tafuri and
his friends became members of the PSI, the Partito Socialista d’Italia. Several issues were
decisive for their choosing the Socialist rather than the Communist Party. The Communists who Tafuri knew seemed to show little interest in urban planning affairs. Even when
they provided opposition in the community council they seemed to do so in a ritualized,
clichéd manner. In making his choice, the events of 1956 in Budapest were more
significant for Tafuri, especially the way in which they had discredited the Communist
Party. Tafuri remembers listening to these shocking events on the radio, and how as a
consequence of them he could not identify himself with the Communist Party.
Of great significance to Tafuri’s intellectual development was the appearance in about
1962-1963 of new political journals that indicated the emergence of a new movement
among the left-wing intelligentsia. Tafuri specifically refers to the Quaderni Rossi edited
by Raniero Panzieri.62 This journal featured articles by ex-members of the Socialist Party
predated to somewhere around 1945, when a variety of voices around the Communist Party, inspired by Trotsky and
Mao Zedong, criticized the tactics of the PCI for a lack of radicality. With the appearance of the Quaderni Rossi (1961)
and the Quaderni Piacentini (1962) their influence greatly expanded to become a significant force in Italy’s attempt to
modernize its politics and institutions and to formulate an adequate answer to the social consequences of the economic miracle. Importantly, the history of the extraparliamentary Left is closely connected to the atmosphere of 1968.
The members of the extraparliamentary Left were very young being for the most part students of secondary schools.
See David Moss, ‘Extraparliamentary Left’, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Italian Culture, p. 205.
63 György Lukács, Die Zerstörung der Vernunft, Der Weg des Irrationalismus von Schelling zu Hitler, Berlin 1955.
In this book, Lukács claims that certain trends in German tradition are guilty of the destruction of reason and rationality, leading ultimately to Nazism. Nazi ideology now appeared to be derived from such thinkers as Schelling,
65
such as Panzieri, Lelio Basso and Vittorio Foa. The position taken by the Quaderni Rossi
was very specific. It argued for renewed working class militancy as a reaction against the
reality of a ‘Fordist factory system’. It argued that a re-reading of Marx and a return to the
revolutionary and militant character of his politics was the only way to confront the reality
of a neo-capitalist society. For Tafuri, this was like a return to his roots and the lessons of
the philosopher Bruno Widmar. As Tafuri recalled, what Widmar had taught and what now
reappeared, was a non-doctrinal Marxism. To be faithful to Marx necessarily implied a
process of reconsidering everything from the start, including Marx’s own works. That is
what Marx had done in his time and that was also what the new generation should start
to do. So, the study of Marx could never imply blindly following or imitating Marx and his
oeuvre. This standpoint had such an impact on Tafuri that he denigrated most of the
Marxist literature that was published at the time. Even the most insightful of these were
characterized by Tafuri and his friends as ‘scholastic’: an attitude that is itself not devoid
of dogmatism.
At the start of the 1960s the publishers Einaudi decided to translate and publish Lukács’
Die Zerstörung der Vernunft (1954), as La Distruzione della ragione, a book with which
Tafuri profoundly disagreed. As Tafuri recalled, in this work Lukács fiercely attacked all that
was important to him, including Kafka and the idea of an avant-garde.63 Tafuri indicates
that this rejection of his ideas was more or less the subjective base from which he
develops the idea of recommencing from the start, and this time dal punto di vista politico.
It is at this point that Tafuri enters into another phase of transition, which always meant
undergoing what was practically an existential crisis: ‘Va bene, finora ho fatto questo
perché ero uno studente universitario eccetera, ma adesso che faccio? Da grande che
faccio?’ 64
BREAKING THE TIES: TAFURI’S HISTORICAL TURN
In the introduction to this chapter I asked the question: how did Tafuri turn to history?
When and how did he decide to exchange an active-participatory life as an engaged
architect for a more reflective-observatory attitude? How did he make the switch from
action to thought? In response, I have already mentioned a few key –events leading to
this change. I have described, for example, a young Tafuri who spent time in the Vatican
Museum copying the masters, already anguishing over his capacity to compete with
the high standards of the old masters, yet, wanting to remain part of this world even if
he could not produce artistic work. Thus, in his youth, Tafuri had already faced personal
doubts concerning the relation of action and theory.
Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Scheler. Notably, the rejection of this book was an important ingredient in
the formation of the later School of Venice. The philosopher Massimo Cacciari adopted Lúkacs’ series of thinkers as
the point of departure for an opposite message embodied in the pensiero negativo.
64 ‘Okay, until now I have done this, because I was an university student etc., but now, what do I do? As a grown up,
what do I do?’
65 Passerini, History as a Project, p. 28.
66
I will now take up the thread of Tafuri’s life once more and focus upon what perhaps can
be called the most radical of Tafuri’s de-cisions: the choice to cut the umbilical cord
connecting him to the architectural community and to become an historian instead.
This was a difficult decision, for after all, Tafuri had trained as an architect and even though
he did not engage in design himself, he had remained close to architects, advising them
and writing articles and books especially for this audience. While Tafuri had already for
some years pursued his activities within the AUA as a professional ‘architect-politician’ he
experienced a growing feeling of not being completely able to identify with the group;
of an increasing distance between the ‘I’ and the ‘we’. The group consisted of architects
who wanted to change society, whereas Tafuri was not interested in being an architect,
or to be more precise, architecture had ceased to occupy a central place in his thoughts
at that time.
We are now in the mid 1960s, and it is during this period that Tafuri experienced a
profound crisis. As Tafuri describes it himself, for two or three years he loosened the strict
control he had maintained over his life, suspending both his thinking and his production.65
Tafuri describes the problem of these years as that of being somewhere between two
identities. The path to becoming an architect had already for some time been closed, but
the choice of history was not yet obvious. Although Tafuri was always interested in
history, at the same time he was imbued with an almost obsessive sense of concern.
Most of all, he was concerned about the architectural history as pursued by ‘unworldly’ art
historians. Seen from the perspective of Panziero and the Quaderni Rossi the choice for
history could be understood as an escape from the chaos of society into the safe
haven of scholarship.66 The ultimate de-cision by Tafuri to devote himself entirely to
history occurred as a result of the encounter with some of the protagonists of post-war
architectural culture. Two people were of special importance to him: Ernesto Nathan
Rogers and Ludovico Quaroni, both architects with a vivid intellectual and historical
interest in the field.67 Significantly, Tafuri recalls how these architects actually noticed his
work as was demonstrated by their visiting him. At that time, Tafuri had started to write
his ‘scritti minori’ – his less known articles, which were published in marginal
architectural magazines such as Argomenti di Architettura and Superfici. These magazines were positioned on the periphery of architectural culture and attempted to put forward an alternative to the monopolization of information by mainstream architectural
magazines such as Casabella Continuità. This situation was important for a young generation who had free access to these magazines and thus found a platform to publish their
ideas.
In an article written by Tafuri about Rome’s architectural and urban history from the postwar years until 1961 he problematizes the attitude of the so-called ‘engaged’ architects
and sets out to demonstrate the complexity behind their position. The article caught the
attention of Quaroni, who had struggled similarly with the pitfalls of an engaged attitude.68
It shows how the initial contact was established between the architect-theoretician Quaroni and the historian-architect Tafuri. These events occurred in a 1960’s climate of opti-
66 In Tafuri’s own words: ‘While I was attracted to history, I always had the fear that history was an escape,
something to be renounced in favour of action.’ Passerini, History as a Project, p. 29.
67
mism and belief in progress, as Italy was experiencing a so-called ‘economical miracle’ –
one which Tafuri considered to be mainly a ‘mental miracle’, a kind of collective whim.
Tafuri was sceptical of the consumer society. In a period dominated by slogans such as
‘super-productivity’ and a belief in the future feasibility of society, Tafuri developed an
interest in Quaroni, who was seen as the pessimistic and unproductive architect par
excellence. Where, for example, Bruno Zevi had invested all his hopes in the centre-left
government, for Tafuri the first cracks in this coalition, heralding its eventual failure,
were highly significant.
Whilst in this frame of mind he became acquainted with Ernesto Nathan Rogers. Rogers
was a professor at the Milan University of Technology, where he taught two disciplines:
a combined course of both the history of art and the history of architecture, and a course
in architectural design. As a result of several visits, Tafuri became friends with Rogers and
was subsequently given the opportunity to gain his initial teaching experience within the
academy. Rogers asked Tafuri to give, on a no-income basis, an extra set of lessons in the
history of art. Tafuri recalls how Rogers took care of him: ‘. . . però lui mi faceva mangiare
lui, mi faceva dormire lui, e mi voleva molto bene’.69 In other words, the desire for history
had been further nourished by concrete opportunities. Towards the middle of the 1960s,
Quaroni asked Tafuri to take on the editing of a book of Quaroni’s own work. Tafuri
accepted but, as I will demonstrate in a later chapter, he turned it into something quite
different. Thus through the protection and the guidance of some of the main protagonists
of Italian modern architecture, Tafuri was given a chance to re-enter the battleground of
the university where, not so many years previously, he had fought bitterly against the
authorities. In fact, Quaroni soon assigned him another job. Quaroni was one of the new
professors of design appointed after the didactical exchange of the early 1960s, as one of
the outcomes of student protest. His chair consisted of two duties: one was teaching
contemporary architectural history and the other was the more classical task of teaching
67
Ludovico Quaroni (1911-1987) was an architect, urban planner and a university teacher. In the late 1930s, during the Fascist regime, Quaroni worked amongst others on a design for the Foro Mussolini. After the war he was
one of the protagonists behind the design of the exemplary new housing quarters in Rome, the so-called Tiburtino
quarter, designed in 1950. He became well known for his self-critical reflection on these engaged topics, especially
the article ‘Il paese dei Barocchi’ (The Land of the Baroque) published in 1957 for Casabella. He was also an active
urban planner, addressing issues associated with the North-South dichotomy, especially within the framework of the
Communità-movement which he joined in 1956. The architect Ernesto Nathan Rogers (1909-1969) was also one of the
intellectual protagonists who had a major influence on the direction of post-war architecture. He was the influential
editor-in-chief of Casabella and took part in the architectural studio BPR, which before the war was known as BBPR.
Rogers was almost an holistic thinker, who recognized a fundamental continuity between past and present and strong
associations between architectural traditions, the city, the academy and everyday life. Significantly, he thought that
even Italian rationalism could be continued if cleansed of associations with fascism – the fascists had actually taken
the life of one of the members of the BBPR firm. The surviving members of the BPR studio restarted their activities
after the war by designing a ‘Monument to the Dead in the Concentration Camps in Germany’ in a rationalist style, as
both a continuation of rationalism and a memento of fascist and nazi terror. See Gordana Kostich, ‘Ludovico Quaroni’,
Encyclopedia of Italian Contemporary Culture, pp. 485-486.
68 See Manfredo Tafuri, ‘La vicenda architettonica romana. 1945-61’, Superfici, 5, April 1962, pp. 20-41.
69 ‘however, he made me eat, he made me sleep, and he was very fond of me.’ Passerini, original transcript, p. 39.
68
architectural design. Quaroni requested that Tafuri give a number of seminars on
nineteenth- and twentieth-century architectural history.
Another decisive factor in his final choice of history was the anger caused by the large
exhibition about the architect Michelangelo, which was organized by Bruno Zevi and Paolo
Portoghesi.70 It was here that Tafuri’s choice proceeded due to reactive forces, for he was
confronted with the way in which he thought history should not be undertaken – with a
‘false history’. Tafuri himself perhaps best explains the culmination of his turn towards
history:
➛ At that time, from a subjective point of view I had settled my future destiny in a
night – this often happens to me, also in other sectors – a tragic night, in which I was
in bad shape, because I had to decide. I remember I was in a sweat, I walked, I was
in bad shape, and I had a fever. In the end, in the morning, I decided and that was it:
I will throw away any sort of compass etc., I will now dedicate myself only to history.
What kind of history I don’t know, but I know that I . . .71
I WILL THROW AWAY THE COMPASS!
“I will now dedicate myself only to history. What kind of history, I don’t know, but I know
that I. . .” It is here that Tafuri had reached a crucial point in his life. Reflecting upon his
student years and early professional activities, he knew he had to make an absolute choice
between one discipline and the other.72 The model of the engaged historian actively
involved in the practice of the architect was no longer viable. Tafuri experienced a growing
awareness of the problems underlying any sort of engaged position and this convinced
him that his task as an historian must be different. In the interview, Tafuri stresses the
importance of the failure of politics in his decision to proceed towards a different sort of
architectural history. This can be explained in the following way. The inception of a centreleft government had provided the engaged, left-wing intellectual with an opportunity to
70
In 1964 Zevi organized, together with his Venetian students, a very specific exhibition about Michelangelo in
the Palazzo delle Esposizioni in Rome. In the accompanying publication, called ‘Michelangiolo architetto’, Zevi
states that this exhibition is about the ‘actuality of Michelangiolo’. Michelangelo is, according to Zevi, ‘the most lively
and pertinent artistic personality, also in relationship to the problems of contemporary practice.’ The exhibition was
jokingly called: ‘Michelangiolo-pop’. It consisted, among other things, of a series of ‘critical models’ articulated by
the students, in which Michelangelo was clearly only used in a very loose way, as a source of inspiration. Some of
these ‘models’ looked like hypermodern mobiles, in contrast to the heavy substantiality of Michelangelo’s sculpture.
See Bruno Zevi, Zevi su Zevi, architettura come profezia, Venezia, 1993, p. 93. Michelangiolo architetto, ed. by
P. Portoghesi et al., Torino, 1964, p. 12.
71 ‘Allora, dal punto di vista soggettivo io ho risolto il mio destino futuro in una notte – questa mi capita spesso,
anche in altri settori – una notte tragica, in cui sono stato malissimo, perché dovevo decidere. Proprio ricordo sudavo,
camminavo, stavo male, avevo la febbre. Alle fine, la mattina, ho deciso e basta: butto qualsiasi compasso eccetera,
io adesso mi dedico unicamente alla storia. Quale tipo di storia non lo so, però so che. . .’, original transcript, p. 42.
72 This paragraph is based on pp. 30-34 of the published interview in Any.
69
Bruno Zevi, ‘Michelangiolo pop’, ‘critical model’ inspired by the work of Michelangelo, exhibition Palazzo delle
Esposizoni di Roma, 1964
exercise real influence, after years in which the left wing was excluded from participation
in government. However, the failure of this government was due to internal pressures,
proving to Tafuri that the pact between progressive intellectuals and social change no
longer worked.73 For Tafuri, this proved that the time had come for a different societal role
for the intellectual, a position which he specifically envisaged through the creation of a
different kind of architectural history. However, as Tafuri mentions in the interview, Bruno
Zevi had different thoughts. Zevi was aware of the failure of this government and
subsequently, as Tafuri recounts, deliberately politicized his exhibition on Michelangelo.
As Zevi argued, faced with a difficult political climate, architects actually had a lot to learn
by studying Michelangelo: ‘In the entire panorama of the history of architecture,
Michelangelo, against all appearances, is the figure from which the architects of today can
learn the most, in the sense that he acts in a sociological, linguistic and professional
situation that has an extraordinary analogy with the situation which is experienced by
us now.’74
In the interview with Passerini, Tafuri describes the exhibition as follows: ‘Michelangelo
was presented on a par with the contemporary architect Eric Mendelsohn, as if to say that
it is the task of the intellectual – not the masses – to cry out against the pain of the human
condition.’ Once again, Tafuri states, it is the enlightened artist-intellectual who has the
right to protest and to denounce a situation.75 For Tafuri, the situation demanded far more
radical steps. The failure of the centre-left government indicated that there was a problem
which threatened the very heart of the practice of the architect. The modern dream of the
architect who constructs and thereby contributes to a better world had been damaged.
For Tafuri, a Zevian entanglement of history, politics and creativity was no longer tenable.
Additionally, he found that the historian could no longer persevere in his or her role as a
proactive contributor to society. As Tafuri stated in the interview: ‘My position was that
history is not an instrument of politics. History is history’.76
The model of the ‘operative’, engaged architectural historian had been rejected.
Yet what was the alternative? At this point, this was something Tafuri did not know.
There were no existing architectural-historical traditions in which he could take his place.
There was architectural history as practiced by engaged architects and there were a few
art historians who were occasionally occupied with architectural history. The first group
modelled their history on the concerns of the present; the second group simply extended
the methodology of art history to architecture. A model for the historian who was deeply
73 We should remember here that one of the most difficult endeavours of the centre-left government was actually,
at the beginning of the 1960s, the introduction of reforms in town and regional planning. The Legge Sullo, created to
stop speculation in real estate, met with fierce resistance from small land owners and the building industry. It further
enlarged the differences between the political Right and Left.
74 Bruno Zevi, ‘Introduzione, attualità di Michelangiolo architetto’, p. 17: ‘nell’intero panorama della storia architettonica, Michelangiolo, contro ogni apparenza, è la figura da cui gli architetti oggi hanno piú da imparare, in quanto
agisce in una situazione sociologica, linguistica, e professionale che presenta straordinarie analogie con quella che
noi attraversiamo.’ In Michelangiolo architetto, ed. by P. Portoghesi, Torino, 1964.
75 Passerini, History as a Project, p. 31.
76 Ibid., p. 31.
71
involved with architecture, yet chose to separate historical practice from actual architectural concerns, did not exist. From this point onwards, Tafuri faced the challenge of
building a discipline and a new type of architectural history. The insecurity of this choice is
indicated by Tafuri’s words: ‘butto qualsiasi compasso’ – I will throw away any sort of
compass. However, there is also a deeper meaning to these words. For Tafuri, the
passage from engaged to ‘non-operative’ history also meant a departure from a certain
ethical code, which would be followed by the search for something different. The need to
do justice to history, to distinguish between ‘false history’ and ‘true’ history, was already
clear to Tafuri. In the years following, the elaboration of a different kind of ethics became
centralto Tafuri’s quest for a different kind of architectural history.
72
73
CHAPTER 3
OPERATIVE HISTORY IN ROME: ZEVI, BENEVOLO AND TAFURI.
Architectural historians in post-war Italy not only debated the worth of courses in modern
architectural history, they also questioned which architecture should be called ‘modern’ at
all. While some embraced Frank Lloyd Wright as a true liberator, others saw the Pantheon
as the epitome of modernity.
At the Sapienza University of Rome, where Tafuri studied, Vincenzo Fasolo (1885-1969)
was a prominent architectural historian. He was the director of the Istituto di Storia
dell’architettura of the Sapienza University and instigated the so-called ‘Roman School of
Architectural History’. Fasolo was an advocate of the conservative academic circles in
Rome which were marked by a proverbial aversion to modernity. For example, the first
Italian translations of the historical surveys composed by Pevsner and Giedion were considered inappropriate reading material by most professors of architecture in Rome.1
However, while his teaching methods were severely criticized by Bruno Zevi, for
example, Fasolo paradoxically saw himself as an innovator and a prophet of the modern.2
He did not stand for the ‘false’ modernity advocated by Giedion, Pevsner and some of his
students, but for the truly modern presented in the great buildings of antiquity. For Fasolo,
these buildings set the standard for a meta-historical canon. Every now and then,
architects recognized the value of this and designed their buildings in accordance with the
meta-historical canon. Fasolo claimed that only these exceptional buildings deserved the
label ‘modern’.
When Tafuri was studying architecture in the second half of the 1950s he was taught
architectural history by father and son Vincenzo and Furio Fasolo, both of them representatives of the Roman School of architecture founded by the ‘integral architect’ Gustavo
Giovannoni (1837-1947). During the decades after the war, largely from 1950 to 1975,
the Sapienza University of Rome became a testing ground for a series of experiments
that were undertaken in the field of architectural history. Architect-historians such as
Bruno Zevi (1918-2000) and Leonardo Benevolo (1923-) broke the anti-modern resistance
1 Siegfried Giedion’s Space, Time and Architecture, The Growth of a New Tradition (1941) was translated as Spazio,
tempo ed architettura, lo sviluppo di una nuova tradizione in 1954 by the Hoepli publishing house in Milan. As early as
1945, an obscure Milanese publishing house called Rosa e Ballo published an Italian translation of Pevsner’s Pioneers
(1936), called I pionieri dell’architettura moderna: da William Morris a Walter Gropius.
2 In the Italian architectural journal Metron Bruno Zevi launched a fierce attack upon the teaching methods of
Fasolo, who subsequently counter-attacked Zevi. The following is an excerpt from the dialogue des sourds, published in
Metron, as a result of this interaction. Fasolo: ‘I want you to know that the school of Rome has pulled itself completely
loose from the conservative methods of the illustrious Universities quoted by you . . .’. Zevi: ‘If that was only true!
I will once again register at the Faculty, even though I have already followed your courses’. See Metron, rivista
internazionale d’architettura, column ‘Lettere’: ‘Riforma e contro’, contribution of Vincenzo Fasolo with remarks by
Bruno Zevi, n. 25, 1948, pp. 1-4.
75
of academic architects such as Fasolo and Giovannoni. However, for both Zevi and
Benevolo the teaching of modern architecture raised many questions, not so much with
respect to the subject matter, but with regard to the ethical assumptions that were
inescapably intertwined with the avant-garde position of modern architects. Teaching
architects-to-be the history of architecture led educators such as Zevi and Benevolo to
confront the question of how to impart an ethical code which would be connected to the
Modern Movement. In this way, for both Zevi and Benevolo, teaching modern
architectural history gave new life to the time-honoured tradition of Bildung – of liberal
education.
Vincenzo Fasolo, Bruno Zevi and Leonardo Benevolo represent three generations of
architectural historians who determined Tafuri’s view of the discipline. In Teorie e Storia
dell’architettura they were the historians who Tafuri fulminated against, especially Zevi
and Benevolo, who for Tafuri were the figureheads of an operative and action-oriented
history. In this chapter, I will trace the educational projects initiated by these historians and
I will indicate their position with respect to Tafuri’s operative history. This will provide an
insight into Tafuri’s characterization of Zevi as an ‘historian with a dagger’. In Teorie e Storia Tafuri stated that Zevi could not be an objective historian, since his incapacity to take
the dagger to civil society had led him to attack history instead, discharging his anger in
writing.3 For Tafuri the question of whether to highlight the Pantheon or Frank Lloyd
Wright as icons of modernity was irrelevant. In his view, what Fasolo and Zevi shared –
their operative, ‘useful’ outlook on architectural history – was more important than what
divided them.
BENEVOLO, ZEVI AND TAFURI
As Maristella Casciato confirms, after the war the Sapienza University of Rome was the
place where the paths of three exceptional architectural historians crossed.4
Firstly, there was the history of Bruno Zevi, a central figure in Italian architectural culture
after the war. In 1945, Zevi launched an attack on the conservative tendencies among
Italian architects by publishing the manifesto Verso un’architettura organica (Towards an
organic architecture). In the autumn of the same year, the director of the I.U.A.V.,
Giuseppe Samonà, asked him to become professor of architectural history in Venice5.
In 1948, while a professor in Venice, he wrote Saper vedere l’architettura, (How to look at
architecture) followed two years later by the historical survey Storia dell’architettura
3 As paraphrased from Manfredo Tafuri, Theories and History of Architecture, London, 1980 (originally published 1968),
p. 148.
4 Maristella Casciato, ‘The Italian Mosaic: The Architect as Historian’, Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, volume 62, 1, March 2003, p. 96. The following paragraph is based upon this source.
5 Bruno Zevi, Saper vedere l’architettura: saggio sull’interpretazione spaziale dell’architettura, Torino, 1948,
translated in English as: Architecture as Space, how to look at architecture, New York, 1957.
Zevi’s Storia dell’architettura moderna has not been translated in English.
76
moderna. (History of Modern Architecture) In 1956 the influential architectural historian
Leonardo Benevolo became a university lecturer in architectural history at the Sapienza
University in Rome. In 1960, exactly ten years after Zevi’s survey, Benevolo published his
Storia dell’architettura moderna, viewed by some as a reaction to Zevi. In 1961, Benevolo
was offered a position as full professor in Palermo and left Rome. Two years later, in 1963,
Zevi left Venice to become a professor of architectural history in Rome. As a result, as a
student and later as a teaching assistant, Tafuri had the chance to observe both Benevolo
and Zevi in their teaching roles.
However, Tafuri was disappointed with the education he received at Rome’s Faculty of
Architecture. In the interview with Luisa Passerini a year before his death he explained the
state of architectural history in Italy at that time: ‘this was the history of a discipline seen
as plaster, bricks, reinforced concrete, without men, without society, and without real
history.’ He was disappointed by the insular attitude shared by most architectural historians: ‘really no one in Italy knew Marc Bloch, or Lucien Febvre, or the Annales School . . .
There was a great sense of ease in front of artworks but, at the same time, a real lack of
history.’6 It was a climate dominated by the fascist trauma, Tafuri recalled. There was no
stimulation of the critical and intellectual development of the student.7 Even in the 1990s,
Tafuri’s condemnation of the situation was extremely harsh.
Unlike others, the great historical constructions of Bruno Zevi only made Tafuri feel
increasingly estranged from the discipline of architectural history.8 What bothered him
was the speculative character of much of the architectural historical writing: its non-philological and unverifiable character arising from the identification of the task of the historian
with that of the critic. Tafuri felt that the agenda of these historians erected a barrier
against true historical research, leading it towards, as he put it, ‘anti-investigation’ and
research that was subverted the left-wing agenda of most architectural historians.
As a reaction, Tafuri took an unusual step for an architectural historian: he began to study
‘the great masters of historiography’ outside his own discipline. This is how he became
acquainted with Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre of the Annales School and with the Italian
historian Delio Cantimori (1904-1966). Tafuri was fascinated by the history of mentality
and became aware of the artifice – the construction – that is essential to the making of
history.
6
Luisa Passerini, ‘History as a Project, an interview with Manfredo Tafuri’, 1993, published in Any, ‘Being Manfredo
Tafuri, Wickedness, Anxiety, Disenchantment’, no. 25-26, 2000, p. 43.
7 In the years following the end of the Second World War, most academics were struggling with their fascist past.
They all had some relationship to fascism and some professors had openly collaborated with the fascist regime. After
the war, they turned to academic and formal architectural pursuits not wanting to talk about the past, preferring to
forget it. Another group of professors who were traumatized by the past had been members of the Resistance and
regarded the temporary flirtation of modern architecture with the regime as ‘superata’, overcome. The end result was
the same for both sides: writing about and teaching modern architecture had become taboo. I thank Architecture
Professor Vieri Quilici for this insight, obtained in an interview on 1 February 1995, in Rome.
8 See Mercedes Daguerre and Giulio Lupo, ‘Entrevista con Manfredo Tafuri’, Materiales 5, PEHCH-CESCA,
Buenos Aires, 1985, pp. 6-7.
77
In the middle of the 1960s, when Tafuri started his research for Teorie e Storia
dell’architettura, he did not follow the path of Bruno Zevi, who had studied Pevsner and
Giedion rather than the architectural history that was taught in Rome. In fact, when the
first Italian translations of Pevsner and Giedion appeared during the 1950s, new cultural
models had already become evident in Italian society, partly in reaction to the changed
modernity of the welfare state. For example, in 1954, the same year in which the first
Italian translation of Giedion’s Space, Time and Architecture appeared, the Einaudi publishing house published the first Italian translations of works by Theodor Adorno such as
Minima Moralia which had been published in Germany in 1951 and the Philosophie der
Neuen Musik, published two years earlier in 1949.9 Tafuri recalls that when he was in his
last year of university these books violently shocked the left-wing establishment. Within
the provincial and parochial world of Italian Marxism, dominated by the legacy of Croce
and Gramsci, the Frankfurt School arrived like a bombshell, to say the least, and was
followed by great indignation.
Within this climate some intellectuals ‘secretly’ translated the work of the ‘unorthodox
and treacherous’ thinker Walter Benjamin, starting with work pertaining to the 1921
project for a magazine called Angelus Novus.10 The semiotic analyses of Roland Barthes
and Max Bense were also important for those interested in the rise of the mass media
and in the theory of communication. Umberto Eco was also a figurehead in this field.
These works were Tafuri’s sources of inspiration while writing Teorie e Storia. They provided a completely different horizon of cultural reference compared to that of the trailblazers of classical modernity with their undiluted faith in progress. At the Sapienza University,
the innovative views developed in the 1950s and 1960s could not help but clash vehemently with the ideals and pretensions of ‘old’ innovators such as Zevi and Benevolo.
Within the span of two decades, the Sapienza University of Rome became the arena of
three remarkable Italian architectural historians, all marked by the desire to completely
reinvent the discipline. However, for Tafuri the goal was radically different from that
envisaged by Zevi and Benevolo. As we shall see below, an important element in the
clash between Zevi, Benevolo and Tafuri was the specific character of the architectural
department of the Sapienza University: its role as a breeding ground for the ‘architetto
integrale’.
9
Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben, Frankfurt, 1951. Italian translation
and introduction by Renato Solmi, Minima Moralia. Meditazione della vita offesa, Torino, 1954. Theodor W. Adorno,
Philosophie der Neuen Musik, Tübingen, 1949. Italian translation and introduction by Luigi Rognoni, Filosofia della
musica moderna, Torino, 1959. In 1954, the Hoepli publishing house published Spazio, Tempo e Architettura by Siegfried
Giedion.
10 Renato Solmi introduced Walter Benjamin into Italy. Walter Benjamin, Angelus Novus, saggi e frammenti, translated
and introduced by Renato Solmi, Torino, 1962. Solmi was in fact very critical of Benjamin. He thought the Kantian schemes used by Lúkacs were more appropriate for the cultural needs of the Italian left. See Florin Berindeau, ‘Benjamin
revisited: An Italian Journey’, review of Girolamo de Michele, Tiri mancini, Milano, 2000, at:
www.uwo.ca/modlang/ailc/bookreviews/bookreviews11.html
See also: Giovanni Battista Clemente, La Scuola di Francoforte in Italia (1954-1999), at:
venus.unive.it/cortella/crtheory/papers/clemente_ricez.italia.pdf.
78
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY IN ROME: A FIGHT BETWEEN MODERNITIES
The Sapienza University of Rome was the first Italian university to found a Facoltà di
Architettura.11 This occurred in 1935, but the initiative was preceded by the creation of the
Scuola Superiore d’Architettura, founded immediately after the First World War in 1920.
As Casciato confirms, the creation of this school concluded a debate that had started in
the middle of the nineteenth century about the various professional roles of the architect.12 Whereas, for example, the Scuola di Applicazione per gli Ingegneri of Turin emphasized the architect as a technical and scientific figure, the academies of fine art offered
architectural courses in which the architect was seen as an artist. The new type of school
founded in Rome was created from a desire for a synthesis which would reconcile the two
attitudes towards architecture. As Casciato states, this new professional figure would
meet the demands set by an Italy finally reunited. The Scuola Superiore di Architettura in
Rome became the model for other architectural schools carrying the same name,
for example, the Scuola Superiore di Architettura di Venezia. In 1935 the Ministry of Education decided that all Superiore schools should be integrated into the classical universities,
thus creating architectural faculties. The exception to this rule occurred in Venice, where
the architectural school remained autonomous from the Ca’ Foscari University.
The ambition of dedicating an entire faculty of a classical university to the training of
architects was unique from a European perspective. Traditionally, architects received their
training either at art schools or technical universities. For example, in France future
architects were trained at the École des Beaux Arts, while in Switzerland and Sweden
they went to Polytechnic universities. Architecture, in other words, was considered to be
either a special branch of engineering or of the Arts, but not a discipline in its own right.
In Germany during the inter-war period an important initiative was taken to modernize the
Kunstgewerbe Schule. In these schools, architecture was seen as an artisanal, craft-like
activity, and this was the point of departure for Walter Gropius to completely modernize
the training of the artist. The Bauhaus, founded in Weimar in 1919, was an avant-garde
school that gathered together and organized the most advanced expressions of the
various artistic fields: from photography to music; from clothing design to the psychology
of form. However, the history of art was not a part of the programme. On the contrary,
the quest for innovation resulted in the banishment of history.
The Scuola Superiore di Architettura di Roma, launched one year later, can be seen as
an attempt to counteract the intentions behind Gropius’ avant-garde school. It was
established by a group of Italian architect-engineers who were not only well grounded in
technical matters, but also educated in classical and humanist culture. Many of them
were active members of the Associazione Artistica fra i Cultori di Architettura, the aim of
which was the study and preservation of the artistic heritage of Rome. These architects,
who were active designers until the late 1920s, made history a cornerstone of the
11 My
account of the Faculty of Architecture in Rome and its professors of history is based on one source in particular: V.F. Pardo (ed.), La Facultà di architettura dell’università ‘La Sapienza’ dalle origini al duemila, discipline, docenti,
studenti, Roma, 2001.
12 Based on Casciato, The Italian Mosaic, p. 92.
79
development of the architect. A central figure within the Scuola Superiore di Architettura
di Roma was the engineer-architect and historian Gustavo Giovannoni, mentioned above.
Giovannoni considered the traditional division between architecture and engineering to be
a ‘cultural prejudice’. It was his aim to reconcile the artistic-humanist aspects and
technical aspects of architectural education and develop a new professional figure.
Students of architecture had to become familiar with a wide range of fields:
from historical-cultural to technical, economic and legal. Giovannoni was drawn by a belief
in the return of the architetto integrale, fashioned after the legendary figures of Vitruvius,
Alberti and Filarete. He envisaged that the rebirth of this old style of architect would be
made possible by the opportunities of contemporary times. According to Giovannoni,
this professional figure had existed in Imperial Roman times and later during the Renaissance. The Middle Ages had been a ‘dark period’, however, in which the organic character
of the architect had sadly disintegrated, a process which he thought had been repeated
during the nineteenth century as architecture and engineering split into two separate
professional disciplines. This process would be brought to a halt with the rebirth of the
‘integral architect’. Giovannoni believed that to achieve this it was most important that the
modern architect was firmly rooted in history and, in particular, the history of architectural
monuments.13
As a consequence of this synthetic ideal, the students at Rome’s Faculty of Architecture
had to study ‘scientific’ subjects such as construction and material science, as well as
‘artistic’ subjects such as ornamentation, model making, and drawing, along with more
properly architectonic topics which focused on the material and spatial aspects of
buildings. However, they were not taught the subject of architectural design itself.14
This may seem strange, but it becomes clearer when seen in the light of the historicist
convictions of the professors. They considered that architectural design would be
inevitably derived from the study of architectural history: in the history of architecture the
architect would find all the information required to develop an appropriate form for the
new construction. As such, there was no need to teach architectural ‘composition’
specifically. In keeping with this historicism, Storia dell’Architettura e Stili dell’Architettura
became the central course of the didactic programme. The ‘styles’ of architecture were
13 In addition, Giovannoni had a profoundly modern way of looking at ancient architectural monuments which was later
adopted by the fascist regime. For him, attention should be focused totally on the material artefact of the monument
itself, as an anchor in a world of historical transformation and as a point of crystallization in which all those transformations could be retrieved. Giovannoni went so far as to state that the monuments had to be ‘liberated’ from their
immediate urban environment, which meant in practice the demolition of the quarters that were near the monument.
As ‘mute testimonies to the past’ these monuments had to be studied in an exclusively physical way, paying
attention to their ‘stratified composition’. See W.F. Pardo, ‘Il contributo della Facoltà di Architettura di Roma al dibattito
culturale Italiano, Un profilo d’insieme alla fine dell’anno 2000’, in Pardo, La Facultà di architettura, p. 15.
14 See Giorgio Simoncini, ‘Gustavo Giovannoni e la Scuola Superiore di Architettura di Roma (1920-1935)’,
in ibid., p. 46. In an essay, the English architectural historian Kenneth Frampton notes that the terms ‘progettazione’
(projection) and ‘composizione’ (composition) are used exclusively in Mediterranean debates about architecture – they
are absent from Anglo-Saxon architectural discourse. ‘There are no professors of composition in Anglo-Saxon architectural schools.’ K. Frampton, ‘An Anthology of Building’, Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thought, ed. by B.
Farmer et al., London, 1993, pp. 396-399.
80
explicitly maintained, even though they referred to a formal art-historical, rather than a
specifically architectonic approach. However, as Casciato confirms, at the same time an
innovative step was taken, by including ‘city building’ and later ‘city planning’ into the
programme. This had consequences for the teaching of architectural history: the accent
shifted from the analysis of architectural styles to the conception of architectural history
as an historical process. A possible reason why ‘styles of architecture’ was nonetheless
included in the course name is that the programme in Rome also offered a combination
of architectural history and art history.15
The fact that history had assumed a central place in the development of the architect did
not mean that further discussions of its role and significance had become superfluous.
In the Discussioni didattiche that were held prior to the opening of the school in 1919, two
antithetical ways of considering operative history became apparent. For example, the
architect Marcello Piacentini rejected a direct use of history for the practice of design.
For Piacentini, the study of the past was indispensable for the possession of ‘rich
architectonic thought’ but could only serve as a general cultural basis for the architect.
Piacentini advised his students to regard architectural history in a ‘synthetic’ rather than
an ‘analytical’ way. He states his admiration for the way the German theorist of aesthetics
Friedrich Theodor Vischer (1807-1887) ‘constricts himself to showing the students
perspective views of antique monuments, without ever entering into particulars.’16
For Vincenzo Fasolo the case was entirely different. An extensive knowledge of the
architectonic past was the blueprint for the design of architecture. Fasolo emphasized the
study of architectonic styles and insisted that in the first years the students present
numerous drawings and impressionistic studies of buildings. Fasolo was inspired by
Viollet-Le-Duc and therefore asked his students to develop a card index of architectonic
and decorative types. According to Fasolo, architectonic design could be brought back to
a number of fixed architectonic types. Designers then exercised their creative abilities in
selecting the most suitable type or, possibly, in arriving at a mixture of types. Despite the
differences, the architects all agreed that architectural history would always be essential
to the formation of the architect.
Rome’s Faculty of Architecture was most marked by its systematic refusal of architectonic modernism, which had developed in the northern part of Europe. For example,
while students were asked to gather extensive documentation on their design projects,
15 Casciato, The Italian Mosaic, p. 95.
16 Friedrich Theodor Vischer was a nineteenth-century poet, novelist, political activist and advocate of the new
‘science of the beautiful’. His career began in 1837 when he became a lecturer in aesthetics and literature in Tübingen.
By and large, the nineteenth-century discussion of aesthetics was divided into two camps: one side explained the
phenomenon of form from a psychological point of view and was inspired by Kant, the other side concentrated
on content and the notion of empathy, influenced by Hegel. For Vischer, this notion of empathy was important:
he believed that architecture, as a ‘symbolic art’, could transfer our emotions to the phenomenal world by giving order
and structure to it. See Harry F. Mallgrave (ed.), Empathy, Form and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics, 1873-1893,
The Getty Center Publication Programs, (Texts and Documents), 1994, pp. 18-20.
17 Pardo, Il contributo della Facoltà di Architettura di Roma, p. 24.
18 Simoncini, Gustavo Giovannoni, in ibid., p. 47: ‘per nostro paese il passato è gloria permanente’.
81
Giovannoni banned all architectonic magazines that dealt with modern themes.17
He defended this choice by referring to a sense of Italianità, saying: ‘for our country the
past is eternally glorious’.18 However, while the choice for the past was final, the way of
looking at that past was profoundly modern. The architect-historians who taught at the
Sapienza University had already abandoned nineteenth-century eclecticism and instead
were looking for a different kind of engagement with the past, through study that was
more in tune with its ‘essence’. In 1927 Giovannoni gave a lecture about the architect
Bramante for the Associazione artistica dei cultori di architettura.19 He spoke of a
Bramante who used stylized forms and simple volumetric elements such as columns and
pilasters. In fact, this preference was already evident in the work of the architect Marcello
Piacentini and included a predilection for greater simplicity, schematic overviews and
basic volumetric forms. This ‘essentialism’ might be explained by the engineering
background of these architects, which resulted in a rejection of a formal and decorative
way of considering architecture, and a limiting of the design process to the façade and the
interior. The history of architecture was of great importance, but only if it was concerned
with what was regarded as being the essence of architecture – the design of spaces.
What mattered in the practice of history was not so much the collection of dates or biographical information, rather, the task of the architectural historian should be to produce
drawings of buildings and graphical schemes of their masses and volumes.20
LEONARDO BENEVOLO
In 1956 Leonardo Benevolo, the architect and former assistant of Fasolo, was given the
responsibility of presenting the course Storia dell’architettura I e II, and did so with Furio
Fasolo, the son of Vincenzo. However, Benevolo’s conception of architectural history was
quite different from that of the Fasolo family. From this point in time, the unity of the
teaching staff existing in previous years, and giving rise to the name ‘the Roman School of
Architectural History’, was a thing of the past. The causes of the didactical rupture which
Benevolo brought about were ideological in nature, originating in a different view of the
role of the architect, who was now to be considered strictly in connection with the
development of society.21
19 Ibid., p. 49.
20
Arnaldo Bruschi, ‘L’insegnamento della storia nella Facoltà di Architettura di Roma e le sue ripercussioni nella
progrettazione e nella storiografia’, in Pardo, La Facultà di architettura, p. 76.
21 This account of the roles of Leonardo Benevolo and Bruno Zevi within the Faculty of Architecture in Rome is based
on the essay written by Alessandra Muntoni, who studied architecture at the faculty at the end of the 1950s, following
the course in architectural history by Leonardo Benevolo. Later, she became an assistant to Bruno Zevi. As a result,
the essay is based on her first hand experiences. I think the attempt made by Muntoni and others in Pardo’s book is
of great importance. While modern architectural historians are usually only known through their works, their teaching
practices are of a similar if not even greater importance. The book edited by Pardo provides a more complete insight
into the personalities of Italy’s most innovative architectural historians after the war. See Alessandra Muntoni, ‘Due
strategie innovative nell’insegnamento della storia dell’architettura: Leonardo Benevolo and Bruno Zevi’, in Pardo,
La Facultà di architettura, pp. 85-111.
83
While the history of modern architecture was hardly being taught within Italian schools
of architecture, internationally the topic had already become ‘old news’ and doubts about
its theoretical basis had begun to develop.22 In England the architects of the New Brutalist
movement produced sceptical and provocative designs aimed at the ‘tradition of the
modern’, and the international platform of the modernists, the Congrès Internationaux
d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM), had fallen into a profound crisis. In this climate,
Benevolo expressed a ‘rappel à l’ordre’ in an attempt to conserve the essential message
of the Modern Movement. Internationally, Benevolo’s plea was met with approval, and in
fact, the intention of authors such as Ernesto Nathan Rogers, Reyner Banham and Peter
Collins was not to reject the Modern Movement but to correct it.
Acting on this basis, Benevolo now profoundly revised the teaching of architectural
history. He considered the notion of architectural history as a formal and stylistic treasure
trove for architects to be far from self-evident. Just as the modern architect should define
his or her role exclusively in terms of a contribution to society, so the teaching of
architectural history was primarily an ethical and normative act and directly related to the
future social performance of the architect. From this perspective, the teaching of history
carried broader responsibilities, and with Benevolo in 1956 and later with the arrival of
Zevi in 1963 history became increasingly crucial for the education of the architect.
Benevolo searched history for answers to fundamental questions. Most of all he was
concerned with the meaning of the architectural profession in different social contexts.
It was this deeper sense of the work of the architect that interested Benevolo.
He considered that the architect could find fulfilment in his or her profession by
committing to a social and ethical cause and engaging with society. For Benevolo
architectural history was inseparable from the issue of engagement. As he argued later in
a history course in 1974, design and history should be considered a unity: while design
shapes the physical surroundings of everyday life, the study of the interrelation between
the environment today and the ‘environments’ of the past is an important condition for the
careful management of this process and thus for the success of the design.23
With respect to his predecessors, Benevolo’s conception of the history of architecture
was both richer and more encompassing. Architectural history was expanded both
horizontally and vertically. Horizontally, it grew in the sense that the reach of the historian
was considerably extended, encompassing not only the distant past but also the burning
issues of the present. Vertically, it was expanded in the sense that the notion of
22
At the beginning of the 1960s, Benevolo became known internationally and his books were translated into many
languages. Among the most important publications by Benevolo, is Storia dell’architettura moderna, published in 1960
by the Laterza publishing house in Rome and translated, among other languages, into German and English. In 1963 he
published Le origini dell’Urbanisticamoderna; in 1968 Storia dell’architettura del Rinascimento; and in 1993 La città nella
storia d’Europa. All these books were translated into English. See M. Maguolo, ‘Le storie dell’architettura moderna’,
typescript of the lectures of Professor Roberto Masiero, I.U.A.V. 1993-1994, p. 82.
23 ‘L’unità fra disegno e storia diviene evidente se il disegno deve servire a padroneggiare l’ambiente fisico in cui
si svolge la vita quotidiana. Occorre misurare e riprodurre gli oggetti che formano il nostro ambiente di tutti i giorni
. . . Ma occorre anche considerare questo rapporto fra ambiente e vita nelle varie epoche del passato’ L. Benevolo,
Introduction to Corso di Disegno I, Roma, 1974, in Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 94.
84
architecture itself became more complex, becoming interwoven with social, cultural and
economic history. Above all, the architect became a participant in society. As a result,
Benevolo concentrated on the city as the architect’s natural destination in the process of
civil engagement, and as the place where architecture demonstrates its essence as the
material incarnation of the complexity of modern life. The history of architecture as the
history of the city also served Benevolo’s political agenda in his role of architect, planner
and ‘urban activist’.24
As a result of Benevolo’s notion of engagement, the lessons in architectural history
completely changed. Architectural history was no longer a body of knowledge transmitted
by a professor with an authoritarian and paternalistic attitude. Instead, Benevolo valued
the act of teaching as an occasion for reflection and for the cultivation of ethical guidelines.
Teaching became Bildung, in the tradition of liberal education. Benevolo expected his
students to actively participate in debate and encouraged them to formulate questions,
a complete novelty. The introduction to Benevolo’s course was also radically different:
he did not begin chronologically with, for example, Greek or Roman architecture,
but instead developed a theme from current issues within the architectural world.25
Alessandra Muntoni, one of Benevolo’s students, recalls that the seminar was conducted
in a didactical form which facilitated discussion among the students. Discussion groups
were subsequently formed, each led by one of Benevolo’s ‘assistants’, among whom
were Mario Manieri Elia, Italo Insolera and Arnaldo Bruschi. Benevolo attempted to be a
democratic teacher, using methods that contrasted sharply with the authoritarianism of
his predecessors. This had great appeal for the students and Muntoni remembers that his
classes were attended by the considerable number of about 200 students.26
24
In Rome, Benevolo had an architectural studio together with the architects Tommaso Giura Longo and Carlo
Melograni.
25 We can connect Benevolo’s introduction of current issues to the analysis made by Carlos Antonio Aguirre Rojas,
who stated that the ’68 movements brought recently lived experience into the centre of attention, as ‘the burning and
essential facts of the most vivid current situation.’ This is for Rojas the consequence of the overthrowing of alienated,
falsified, authoritarian reality: a new claim on the present as the point of departure for historical study, bringing
reality into the ambit of research. C.A.A. Rojas, ‘1968 as a turning point in historical thinking: changes in western
historiography’, Groniek, 160, 2003, pp. 369-380. In Storia dell’architettura moderna, Benevolo says: ‘the fundamental
reference of our entire discourse is the architecture of today, which compels us to make an operative choice as a point
of departure, before it can become an object of historical investigation.’ Leonardo Benevolo, Storia dell’architettura
moderna, Bari, 1960, in Maguolo, Le Storie dell’architettura moderna, p. 83
26 Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 86.
27 Ibid., p. 87: ‘L’architettura abbraccia la considerazione di tutto l’ambiente fisico che circonda la vita umana:
non possiamo sottrarci ad essa, finché facciamo parte della civiltà . . . Né possiamo confidare i nostri interessi nella
architettura a un piccolo gruppo di uomini istruiti . . .’. In the library of the Department of Architectural History of the
Sapienza University of Rome, I found one of Benevolo’s dispense – lecture notes – for the Corso di Storia dell’architettura II in the year 1959-60. In these notes, we find an outline by Maneri Elia who gave a lesson on ‘architects and
engineers in the nineteenth century’ and two lectures by the architect Franchetti: one dedicated to Van de Velde and
one to William Morris. Università degli studi di Roma, facoltà di architettura, Professor Leonardo Benevolo, Corso di
Storia dell’architettura II 1959-60, lezioni a cura di Dott. Arch. A. Bruschi, Dott. Arch. V. Franchetti-Pardo, Prof. Arch. I.
Insolera, Dott. Arch. M. Manieri Elia, Dott. Arch. G. Samonà-Marcialis.
85
William Morris, Chintz, 1896, illustration in Benevolo’s Storia dell’architettura moderna
The students were especially surprised when Benevolo distributed what he considered
to be a key text concerning architecture, written by William Morris in 1881:
➛ Architecture embraces the consideration of the whole physical environment that
surrounds human life: we cannot withdraw ourselves from it, because we are a part
of civilization . . . Nor can we entrust our interest in architecture to a little group of
skilled men . . .27
This quote appealed to Benevolo in his quest to define the essence of architecture;
his search for a suitable concept to clarify its deepest assumptions. In William Morris’
words, Benevolo saw a confirmation of the broadening of the horizons of architecture to a
point where it would become ‘the whole physical environment that surrounds human life’.
Morris spoke of the engagement of all human beings in ‘architecture’ and viewed architecture as a means of advancing civilization. This appealed to Benevolo’s classical
Roman background. However, Morris’ message was that in modern times, this process
of advancing civilization necessarily implied engagement and moral responsibility. As an
Italian, Benevolo saw architecture in the light of the classical ideal of cultivation and
formation, but now recognized that this ideal could only be realized if architecture was
approached in a whole new way.28 As Muntoni recalls, this vision was completely
different to the grammar school textbooks.29 For example, the second year began with
slides of S. Maria Assunta church in Grignasco, by the architect Bernardo Vittone –
an absolutely unknown ‘monument’ which was analyzed in a new way. For Benevolo,
the church was not an isolated object, but part of the surrounding ‘urban texture’,
whose forms, colours materials all influenced the design of the church.
An important aspect of the changed content of architectural history, was the altered
style in which it was taught. Benevolo did not want his students to learn facts by heart;
instead, they had to learn to think critically, as autonomous, independent people.
They were trained in reflection: as mentioned above, their architectural education was a
matter of Bildung, rather than imitation or blind obedience. Benevolo also introduced irony
into the classroom. Despite being a professor of history, he wanted to be entertaining:
28 In a book review of Umberto Eco’s On Literature, the Dutch critic Michaël Zeeman gives a good description of the
peculiarity of Italian authors. In Italian reality, so states Zeeman, the presence of a grand and to a large extent reliable
history is a given. ‘We stand with what we do on the shoulders of giants, which is visible on every street corner –
and those giants stand firmly in the ground.’ With these words, Zeeman points to the simultaneous presence of
material and non-material history as specific to Italy. At the Forum Romanum, not only has a respectable amount of
marble been erected on the ground, but also a civilization was invented. Therefore, Italian authors are always aware
of this history and this civilization. Moreover, Zeeman states, they have a natural and erudite way of dealing with
the canon. This stands in clamorous contrast to the Dutch, according to Zeeman, since they are allergic to tradition
and canon. Michaël Zeeman, ‘Het kernidee voor een roman, Umberto Eco als essayist product van zijn eigen faam’,
de Volkskrant, 24-10-03, p. 24.
29 Ibid., p. 86.
30 Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 86: ‘Pareva che il professore affrontasse la lezione come un’occasione piacevolissima di intrattenimento, col gusto di sorprendere, e con ciò di interessare, di catturare l’attenzione che di fatti
era assoluta.’
87
synopsis of the course by professor Benevolo, 1959-1960
➛ It seemed like the professor approached the lessons as a very pleasant occasion
for amusement, with a taste for discovery, and to create interest, to catch attention,
which in fact was absolute.30
Architectural history now became a discourse; a logical argument that had to be
understood by an audience and also had to convince that same audience. As such, history
had to be explained clearly and in a bold style.31 However, these lessons were not purely
a matter of rhetoric or persuasive strategies. Benevolo and his assistants were convinced
that it was necessary to reinvent and reshape the discipline of architectural history.
Benevolo approached architectural history using a systematic and chronological method.
Muntoni recalls how he hung up a large map with arrows indicating migration flows, trade
routes, the exchange of materials and techniques in the Mediterranean and so on.
He would proceed, according to Muntoni, with analytical readings of the construction of
the Acropolis in Athens: ‘explaining to us all the subtleties of the technical construction,
of the perceptive and artistic construction of the monuments of Callicrate, Ictino, Fidia,
Filocle ’32
As well as the changes to content and style, the time and energy that was put into the
elaboration of dispense – lecture notes and the synopsis of the course – should be viewed
in the light of the need to reinvent the discipline. Indeed, while the dispensa from the year
1959-60 mentions the book Spazio, Tempo e architettura by Siegfried Giedion, translated
into Italian in 1954, and Arnold Hauser’s Storia sociale dell’arte, translated by Einaudi in
1956, Benevolo was still convinced that a proper history of modern architecture had yet to
be written.33 There was not, in Benevolo’s opinion, a proper reference book to support the
31
We also find this ‘strategy of persuasion’ in Benevolo’s Storia of 1960. For Benevolo, the essence of the Modern Movement lay in the fact that it united all the efforts of architects in different countries into one collective
achievement – that it made modern architecture universal. Benevolo’s Storia was also part of this enterprise: in
order to maximize its diffusion, it was explicitly written for a large audience and it had an emphatically didactic tone.
See Maguolo, Le Storie dell’architettura moderna, p. 84.
32 Ibid., pp. 86-87: ‘Benevolo apriva il primo anno mostrandoci delle tavole nelle quali erano graficizzati con delle
frecce i flussi migratori, i percorsi mercantili, gli scambi dei materiali e delle techniche del mediterraneo, e poi ad
esempio, dedicava delle letture analitiche alla costruzione dell’Acropoli d’Atene, spiegandoci tutte le sottigliezze delle
tecniche costruttive, percettive, artistiche, dei monumenti di Callicrate, Ictino, Fidia, Filocle.’
33 See M. Manieri Elia, ‘Architetti e ingegneri dell’ 800’ p. 5, in L. Benevolo, Corso di storia dell’architettura II,
(see note 26) 1959-60.
34 A particular point of reference was created by the historiography of Nikolaus Pevsner. His history of modern architecture was taken as a model, but he was also criticized for his limitations. For example, the architect Arnaldo Bruschi,
one of Benevolo’s assistants, criticized the conceptualization of the medieval artist by Pevsner. He claimed that the
reality of the medieval artist was almost never treated in histories such as that of Pevsner. In this period, artists in
general did not desire to distinguish themselves or ambitiously affirm their artistic personalities (as, in contrast, happens from the Renaissance onwards). As Bruschi continues, the architect, like the craftsman or the simple worker,
is satisfied with his daily ‘action’, forcing himself to carry out his work as well as possible, more from a profound and
responsible moral engagement than from the desire for terrestrial glory. We may see in Bruschi’s representation of the
medieval artist a pretext for the collective and anonymous character of the Modern Movement. A. Bruschi, ‘Panorama
del Romanico in Francia’, in ibid., p. 2.
89
lectures in the history of modern architecture. Consequently, Benevolo and his assistants
wrote the book themselves. Muntoni observes that this was a very serious task for them,
it was as if they had to fashion a new discipline from clay.34 The dispense and the lectures
served as a basis for Benevolo’s Storia dell’architettura moderna, published in 1960.
The title of the book was a provocation: it contained no references to earlier written
histories, such as Zevi’s history written ten years earlier under the same title.
Benevolo wanted to make it clear that his book was the only proper history written so far.
Whereas at the beginning of the twentieth century, Giovannoni had privileged Greek and
Roman classicism followed by the Renaissance, by the end of the 1950s, Benevolo was
emphasizing the medieval period, followed by William Morris and the late nineteenth
century. The worlds of Giovannoni and Benevolo seem incommensurate, yet, at the same
time Benevolo remained a Roman historian, with his stress on the idea of Bildung;
of a humanist education.
For Benevolo, the history of architecture consisted of a series of continual changes in
the definition of architecture itself, instigated by changes in the macro-world of culture,
economics, and sociology. However, Benevolo recognized the beginning of something
completely new happening at the start of the twentieth century. While the history of
architecture had always been marked by change, here a revolution was occurring.
While architecture and history had been intimately connected from the fifteenth century
onwards, it was the twentieth-century avant-garde that cut this umbilical cord. As we saw,
architects such as Walter Gropius banished history from the architect’s studio.
However, as Casciato confirms, for Benevolo the rejection of history by avant-garde architects paradoxically fostered the study of architectural history.35 Architects were now no
longer focused upon history as a basis for their practice of design. Purified from the
banality of utilitarian purposes, Benevolo considered that the moment had now come to
see Renaissance architecture, for example, for what it really was. The revolution of the
artistic avant-garde also had important consequences for the work of the historian: the
true identity of architectural history as a social history was now revealed.
However, perceiving the history of architecture through a social paradigm did not imply
for Benevolo that a completely non-operative history was desirable. In fact, his engaged
position prohibited such a turn. Benevolo explored two ways in which architects could
draw lessons from architectural history. Firstly, together with his colleagues, the architects
Tommaso Giura Longo and Carlo Melograni, Benevolo composed a small book that
contained ‘standards’ of modern architecture and urbanism which were ‘deliberately
connected with architectural design’. The book contained such ‘standards’ as the
Weissenhof Siedlung, Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse, and the research details of minimal
housing requirements undertaken by members of the CIAM in 1929.36 Secondly,
Benevolo found that ancient architecture also contained an operative dimension,
albeit in a less direct way. This aspect of history contributed to the cultural development
35 See Casciato, The Italian Mosaic, pp. 96-97.
36 L. Benevolo, T. Giura Longo, C. Melograni, I modelli di progettazione della città moderna. Tre lezioni, Vicenza, 1969.
See Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 111.
90
of the student and its study would create a generally more critical attitude, enabling a
more nuanced confrontation with one’s own time.
THE BITTERNESS OF PROGRESS
In 1961 Benevolo left the university in Rome to become professore ordinario in Palermo.
Two years later, in 1963, the ‘occupation of forty days’ took place at the architectural
faculty, through which the students hoped to enforce drastic didactic reform.
Earlier in chapter two I pointed to the clash between the innovations of the modernist
architectural historians after the war and the ideas of the ’68 generation. The young
architectural students turned to cultural models that were difficult to reconcile with a
modernist belief in progress and with a ‘tout-court’ engaged attitude. Despite all the
innovations which seemed to make Leonardo Benevolo perfectly in tune with his time,
he still experienced problems in the confrontation with the protesting students in Rome.
Benevolo was indeed interested in the students’ movement. He commented on it in
articles written for periodicals such as Spazio e società and Futuribili.37 On the basis of his
modernist commitment, it was clear to Benevolo that he should choose the students’
side. However, he also observed the events in Rome with a sense of concern.
In fact, advocating an enlightened operative history entailed obligations in a chaotic
society where the call for change was so widespread and where people were so
intensely engaged in the struggle to achieve it.
The call for didactic reform, nourished by the belief in the Modern Movement, had to be
balanced by what was possible. On this basis, the feasibility of the modernist programme
came under question through the critical examination of the students. Their concern was
shared by Benevolo himself, who saw his ideal of a progressive, enlightened history
clashing with the grim reality of a badly functioning ‘university of the masses’. In the
middle of the 1970s, when Benevolo returned from Palermo to resume his task as
professor of architectural history in Rome, he encountered a situation that in many ways
was absurd. Students would arrive at the oral exams in groups of as many as twenty,
demanding a ‘27 garantito’, which implied a guaranteed pass. They also constantly
interrupted the lessons by demanding discussion of current political issues.38 In this
climate, Benevolo’s insight into the Modern Movement was further sharpened.
Alessandra Muntoni describes this interaction in the following way:
37 Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 90.
38 Ibid., p. 95.
39
Ibid., p. 95: ‘Gli studenti si occupano di temi politico-sociali? L’architettura può comprendersi solo nell’ampio
scenario nella storia della società cui si rivolge? Ebbene, Benevolo elabora 20 Tesi che descrivono lo sviluppo della
città moderna.’ Muntoni refers here to an essay ‘Lo sviluppo della città moderna. Venti tesi per il Corso di Storia
dell’Architettura all’Università di Roma 1975-76’, which can now be found in Leonardo Benevolo, La città e l’architetto,
Roma, 1984, pp. 31-59.
91
Venice 1951, Zevi in conversation with Frank Lloyd Wright, on occasion of the assignation of a laurea honoris causa
for this architect
➛. . . The students are concerned with political-social themes? Architecture can only
be understood in the broad scenario of the history of society to which it is directed?
Well then, Benevolo elaborates 20 theses that describe the development of the
modern city.39
As Muntoni suggests, the opening sentence of Benevolo’s essay Lo sviluppo della città
moderna. Venti tesi per il Corso di Storia dell’architettura all’Università di Roma was the
statement of a programme: ‘Modern architecture, it is said, is research into alternative
ways to organize the built environment, from the objects of use to the city and the
regions.’40 Benevolo saw a relationship between the modernist approach to city planning
and the student revolt, and he now began to write modern architectural history as the history of the bourgeois city, the pre-industrial city, the industrial-liberal city, the ‘corrected’
industrial city, the post-industrial city, and so on. Yet the first trial of strength between this
optimistic, progressive view of history and the harsh reality occurred not in his writing but
in the classroom. While only a small group of students attended Benevolo’s lectures,
they arrived at his exams in numbers that exceeded 3000.41 A proper examination seemed
impossible and at one point, Benevolo even went so far as to simply let all the students
pass after a collective assignment in the classroom – the results were disastrous.
Muntoni describes it as:
➛ A conceptual illiteracy, an inability to write, a thematic confusion, that bordered on
the incredible.42
40 Muntoni,
Due strategie innovative, p. 95. Referring to L. Benevolo, Lo sviluppo della città moderna. Venti tesi per il
Corso di Storia dell’Architettura all’Università di Roma, 1975-76, now in: L. Benevolo, La Città e l’architetto, Bari, 1984.
41 In her essay, Muntoni describes the large number of students at the Architecture Faculty as ‘swelling up of the
courses beyond any measure’ (‘il gonfiarsi oltre ogni misura dei Corsi), p. 95. She mentions that this was also the case
for the history class given by Benevolo, although this course was not compulsory. There was, according to Muntoni, a
mentality among the students of ‘proviamoci!’ – let’s just give it a try. History exams were generally not considered to
be difficult and were not really taken seriously. Embittered about this development, Benevolo wrote a book in which he
mocked the students’ attitude: See Leonardo Benevolo, La laurea dell’obbligo (The Mandatory Degree), Bari, 1979.
42 Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 95: ‘un analfabetismo concettuale, un’incapacità di scrittura, una confusione
tematica, che rasentano l’incredibile.’
93
BRUNO ZEVI AND THE STUDENT MOVEMENT
In 1963, three years after the foundation of an Istituto di Storia dell’Architettura in Venice
– where he succeeded in establishing the first Italian university chair in architectural
history – Zevi returned to his home town of Rome to teach the by now volatile Corso di
Storia dell’ Architettura I e II.43 In a climate where students had begun to raise their voices
and where attention was increasingly focused on university reform, Zevi enthusiastically
began with the organization of a completely different course in architectural history.44
Indeed, Zevi had already published a programme in Metron in 1947 containing four points
concerning the reform of architectural history:
1. The history of architecture should include the history of the city.
2. The history of modern architecture should constitute an integral part of the course
in the history of architecture.
3. The history of architecture should be the history of international architecture and
not only the history of Italian architecture.
4. The teaching should concentrate more on the specific field of architecture in the
spatial sense of the word and considerably less on architectural decoration.45
Zevi fostered the ideal of an architectural history that contributed to modern culture,
together with modern literature and modern painting, for example. For Zevi, architectureas-culture was critically important as he felt architecture should address the vital concerns
of the people living at present. He declared that his histories were by definition imperfect,
always open to rewriting, and that they responded to the concrete, vital facts of life.
At the same time, he insisted that architecture should be viewed in its most specific
quality: as the art of constructing spaces. Books such as Saper vedere l’architettura (1948)
and Storia dell’architettura moderna (1950) were based on this principle.
Zevi derived his most important conviction from the Neapolitan philosopher Benedetto
Croce: that history should always be contemporary and actual; always an inextricable part
of daily life.46 In continual dialogue with Croce, Zevi did not hesitate to use imagination and
43 In Zevi’s extensive list of publications, we find Verso un’architettura organica, published in 1945, and Saper vedere
l’architettura, from 1948. Both of these books were translated into English. In addition to his Storia dell’architettura
moderna from 1950, he also published, among others, Architettura e Storiografia, le matrice antiche del linguaggio
moderno (1974) and Il linguaggio moderno dell’architettura: guida al codice anticlassico (1973) which was also
translated into English. See Maguolo, Le storie dell’architettura moderna, p. 82.
44 As Casciato confirms, one of the protesting students was Manfredo Tafuri, who graduated in 1960 but continued
to demand far-reaching university reforms and the entry of modernist faculty members into the university, Casciato,
The Italian Mosaic, p. 9.
45 Bruno Zevi, ‘Quattro riforme nell’insegnamento della storia dell’architettura’, Metron, rivista internazionale
d’architettura, no. 19, 1947, p. 13: ‘la storia dell’architettura deve includere la storia dell’Urbanistica/ la storia
dell’architettura moderna deve costituire parte integrante del corso di storia dell’architettura / la storia dell’architettura deve essere storia dell’architettura internazionale e non solo storia dell’architettura italiana / l’insegnamento
va portato nel campo specifico dell’architettura nel senso specifico della parola e assai meno in quello della
decorazione architettonica’.
94
intuition in the exploration of events and periods of the past.47 For Zevi there was only one
temporal standpoint – the present – which entirely determined the shape of history.
There was no such thing as a past that can never be entirely known; as a time that has
become incommensurable with our perception. For Zevi, the past was entirely at our
disposal, it was there to be used and to learn from, yet at the same time he claimed that
we should also remain true to the integrity of the building itself.48 Architectural history
should always start from and end with the object, the thing itself, and not drift about in the
sea of society or civilization without this anchor. In his histories, Zevi designed a complex
web that consisted of the history of art, architectural culture, political and civic engagement, and an engagement in teaching the younger generation. History, according to Zevi,
served to disturb the present balance of power, therefore, it was the task of the historian
to demonstrate hitherto unsuspected relations between, for example, modern aesthetics
and architecture. Zevi’s history focused on the avant-garde, on cultural revolutionary
movements, but to an even greater extent it focused on ‘masters’, who through their
prophetic insight had the power to deviate from tradition and to open up unexpected new
paths. The broadness of Zevi’s cultural and disciplinary horizon derived from an incredibly
intense engagement with the theme of modernity, with its reasoning, its message, and
its forms. This was for Zevi the only issue worth considering, both in history and in the
present. Thus, his students were asked to study the different approaches of modernity
evident in the work of, for example, Franz Wickhoff, Heinrich Wölfflin, Erwin Panofsky,
Georg Steiner and Louis Mumford.
Benevolo’s notion of operative history did not include the examination of the period
before the twentieth century, a period that could now be accurately observed but which
could not be used in an operative way. For Zevi the question with regard to this issue was
different. In his opinion the entire past should be assessed in accordance with the rules of
the present: his conception of history was therefore unitary and shaped by present concerns.49 This meant an intensification of operative intentions and so, with Bruno Zevi,
the operative paradigm of the School of Rome reached its climax. Zevi was the prototype
of the passionate, partisan architectural historian completely concerned with modernity.
46
See, for example, the statement on p. 15 of that same article: ‘It is not a paradox to think that one should create a living history proceeding in the inverse direction of how history is used. First analyse contemporary problems,
then descend to previous periods that form its historical basis, then treat its roots.’ ‘Non è un paradosso pensare
una storia viva si dovrebbe fare procedendo esattamente all’inverso di come si usa. Prima l’analisi dei problemi
contemporanei, poi risalire ai periodi precedenti che ne formano la base storica, poi trattare le radici.’
47 See Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 97.
48 Ibid., p. 97.
49 See, for example, the statement made by Zevi in his introductory speech for the chair in Rome: ‘For thirty years,
at the beginning of each class, whether on ancient Egypt or on Romanesque architecture or the nineteenth century,
I asked my students and myself: why should this be a theme for us? And only after having found the modern key for
the reading of the past, could I discern the operative interest to analyse the products.’ See ibid., p. 97: ‘Per trent’anni,
all’inizio di ogni lezione, sia sull’antico Egitto o sul romanico o sul XIX secolo, chiedevo agli studenti e a me stesso:
perché ce ne occupiamo? E solo dopo aver trovato una chiave moderna alla lettura del passato, potevo individuare
l’interesse operativo di analizzarne i prodotti.’
50 Ibid., p. 100.
95
Outrage! Newspapers reporting on Zevi’s decision to leave the relegated university
To provoke the ‘storici storici’ he included a photograph of the apartment house he
designed with Silvio Radiconcini in his Storia dell’architettura moderna.50 This implied
crossing the border between the observer-historian and the protagonists of history,
but also a scandalous violation of the rule of objectivity in historical work. However, just
like Benevolo, Zevi was an architect-historian, who throughout his life remained
committed to the execution of architectural projects.
For Zevi the study of history was not a solitary activity. He worked on projects together
with other architect-historians, art historians, philosophers, and his students. The project
that he started at the beginning of the 1960s on the ‘architect’ Michelangelo provides an
example of the latter.51 It is telling that Zevi, in the introduction of the accompanying book,
mentions one particular group of students. This group had the task of studying and
documenting the ‘urban project’ of Michelangelo’s Campidoglio square in Rome.
However, the students became frustrated, Zevi recalled, as despite their cameras they
were unable to capture the urban essence of Michelangelo’s achievement. ‘What was
lacking?’ asked Zevi rhetorically in his introduction, and he responds that:
‘It was evident: what was lacking was the sense, the life, the force of the contracted
space in the square.’ 52 The students then decided to swap the documentary-scientific
approach for a creative approach. At night they went to the Campidoglio square, placed
their handheld cameras on the ground, and started running around with lamps and
torches. They left traces of light and patterns of space, which were photographed.
Zevi was enthusiastic about this approach, because he now believed that the students
were finally able to capture Michelangelo’s message suggesting that: ‘an unbiased and
modern approach, between surrealist expressionism and the informal, penetrates the
Capitoline square.’53
Once he had arrived in Rome, Zevi also began a radical innovation of the teaching of
architectural history. What marked this attempt at reform was that, by adopting an
‘interdisciplinary approach’, architectural history grew and encompassed other disciplines:
firstly, those subjects that were akin to history, such as Letteratura artistica, but later also
the subjects that were directly concerned with architectural design.54 It is here that
operative history assumed its most explicit form: Zevi believed in a direct contact
between the courses in history and the courses in design – in an ‘unmediated projection
51 Over three academic years, from 1960 to 1963, the architectural history courses at the I.U.A.V. in Venice focused
on Michelangelo. In 1964, this work resulted in an exhibition in Rome and an accompanying book. The exhibition was
nicknamed ‘Michelangelo-pop’. Contributions to the book were made by the art historian G.C. Argan, the architecthistorian P. Portoghesi, the architectural historians L. Puppi and S. Bettini, and the philosopher R. Bonelli, amongst
others. See Michelangiolo architetto, P. Portoghesi et al., (eds.), (collana storia di architettura 6 ), Turin, 1964. At the
basis of the whole project was Zevi’s conviction, in contrast to, for example, James Ackerman, that Michelangelo
should be valued in the first place for his spatial-architectural, and not for his sculptural talents.
52 Bruno Zevi, ‘Introduzione: attualità di Michelangiolo architetto’, in ibid., p. 13.
53 Ibid., p. 13.
54 To my knowledge, the Italian faculties of architecture are unique in teaching ‘Letteratura artistica’ as a subject. The
creation of this subject may be due to the idealist-humanist character that the Italian education system developed in
the twentieth century, privileging the teaching of the classics, history and literature over technical training.
98
of historical culture upon the tables of design’.55
For Bruno Zevi, the student protest at the architectural faculty of Rome was a
particularly bitter pill. In 1968, five years after his appointment as a professor of architectural history, the students attacked him directly. While Zevi had made the power of revolution and change a central theme of his histories, and while he had been a rebel
avant-la-lettre in his confrontation with a Roman tradition in architectural history,
he was now seen by the students as an exponent of that same establishment.56
As Muntoni states, Zevi was caught off guard by this attack and did not know how to
respond.57 This was a tragic event: the professor who had always invested a great deal in
his students, did not now know how to enter into a constructive dialogue with them.
Zevi was a supporter of evolutionary reform and thought the radicalism of the students
offensive. He could not understand their rejection of bourgeois culture. At first he tried to
implement an acceleration of university reforms, but later withdrew from contact when
the students ridiculed him with the slogan: ‘Good, fine, 7+! 58 From the beginning of the
1970s, Zevi focused solely upon his lectures in architectural history. Nonetheless,
in reaction to the pressing demands of the students to directly address political themes in
the lectures, Zevi developed a course that consisted of ‘work-in-progress’. It was a course
in which the themes continuously changed and which was completely immersed in the
present. By virtue of this protean character, Zevi made it impossible to mount a cohesive
attack on his ‘method’. At this point, Zevi reached a peak in didactical innovation.
He exchanged the traditional lecture for ‘permanent global discussion’ which required
everyone to participate including amongst others professors, students, and assistants.
Muntoni recalls these classes as follows:
➛ All themes were discussed with everyone, architects and artists, psychiatrists and
social workers, designers and historians, critics, urbanists, structuralists, linguists,
sociologists. Whoever telephoned Zevi to present a book or a recently finished
building, a project, or a cultural programme to him, perhaps to get a review in
l’Expresso or in Architettura, storia e cronache was immediately invited to the
university, to speak publicly in the course, in front of an ever changing audience.59
By now the number of students attending his lectures had reduced considerably,
but those who did remain became true fans of Zevi, continuing to attend his courses after
their graduation.
55 See Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 104. In her essay, Muntoni also mentions the concrete character of
Zevi’s lectures. The classes, she tells us, were held in the Aula Magna, the main lecture hall of the university, where
two projection screens were located. All of the teachers were involved in discussing different architectural works,
amongst the hundreds of students who were present. The students had to be well prepared for their exams – Zevi
asked for a written text about a chosen ‘monument’, together with several technical and artistic drawings, and ‘critical
photographs’, ibid., p. 102.
56 Ibid., p. 102.
57 Ibid., p. 102.
58 What the students ridiculed with these words was the enthusiasm, the energy and the good, but paternalistic
intentions of Zevi with regard to them.
59 Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 103.
99
TAFURI’S TEORIE E STORIA
The value attributed to history is central to the history of the Faculty of Architecture in
Rome. For Giovannoni’s architetto integrale the recourse to history was largely selfevident, as he believed the design of buildings and cities resulted naturally from the study
of the past. After the war, when modern architecture was introduced into the faculty,
the demand on history for support and orientation had intensified. As the expectations
about the societal role of the architect were raised, so was the hope invested in the study
of the architectural past. Architectural history was seen as the guiding light that indicated
the social, cultural, and most of all the civic role that the architect was required to fulfil.
In a context where the choice for history was so unanimous and where there was such
a strong consensus about its positive role, Tafuri’s Teorie e Storia dell’architettura must
have caused a tremendous shock. Tafuri’s conviction that architectural history could only
have a future by distancing itself from actual design practice was an extremely difficult
message to accept. In the fourth chapter of his book, entitled ‘La critica operativa’,
Tafuri engaged in a direct confrontation with the work of Benevolo and Zevi. In Teorie e
Storia dell’architettura Tafuri writes that both Zevi and Benevolo exemplify the type of
historian who twists history in order to demonstrate their own a priori desires for the
future.60
An example of this occurred at the end of the 1960s, when Zevi became interested in
the question of l’architettura come linguaggio – ‘architecture as language’.61 At this time,
the masters of modern architecture were ageing and the avant-garde was already an
historical fact. Zevi now became preoccupied with the question of whether their
contributions could be systematized into a code: if perhaps their flashes of genius could
be systematized into a ‘language’ that was accessible to all. Zevi wanted to secure the
message of the Modern Movement by transforming it into a method that would guarantee
an appropriate modern attitude even in mediocre architects. This position entailed a
criticism: as he stated in Il linguaggio moderno dell’architettura (1973), the requirement
arose because the Modern Movement had failed to establish a strong and well-defined
‘institutional language’, especially when compared to the Renaissance.62
For Tafuri the question of the possibility of an ‘artistic language’ was also an important
issue.63 For example, during a seminar held in the spring of 1966 at the I.U.A.V. in Venice,
60 Tafuri, Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, p. 68.
61 See Muntoni, Due strategie innovative, p. 103.
62
In a lecture held for the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1983, Zevi said of this attempt: ‘What was needed
was a language, a codified language that could be transmitted to all, and such that it could be written by architects
and constructors, read by critics and scholars of art, discussed by the public. One cannot learn the Italian language solely by ordering spaghetti or reading La Divina Commedia. A language becomes a language when it passes
through a process of codification.’ For Zevi, the 12-note serial method of the avant-garde composer Arnold Schönberg
was the model for how the unruly achievements of the architectural avant-garde could be transformed into a language, ready to withstand academic counter-attacks. See Bruno Zevi, Zevi su Zevi, architettura come profezia, Venezia,
1993, p. 158.
100
Tafuri presented a paper entitled: ‘The structures of language in the history of modern
architecture.’64 However, Tafuri regarded this theme primarily as a problem: as a field of
tension created when the twentieth-century avant-garde decided to overthrow every artistic language that claimed stability and continuity of meaning – consider, for example,
the norms instituted by the Beaux-Arts tradition in France. Teorie e Storia dell’architettura
was so shocking because, while starting with a commonly discussed theme such as
artistic languages, it demonstrated that Tafuri had a radically different view of modernity.
While it was Zevi’s goal to safeguard modernity’s message and to strengthen the stability
of architectural meaning, Tafuri states that the very essence of modernity entailed that
these themes should always remain problematic.
The first chapter of Teorie e Storia, entitled Modern Architecture and the Eclipse of History, starts with a consideration of the Renaissance architects Filippo Brunelleschi (13771446) and Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472). They experienced a true revolution of reason,
writes Tafuri, when they discovered that it was possible to define the meaning of buildings
rationally and to systematize these definitions. They could then proceed to give these
meanings a stable position within society by ‘institutionalizing’ them.65 At this time
humanist architects also began to write intellectual treatises on architecture.66
However, Tafuri claimed that the Renaissance should not only be viewed as a time of
progress and victory. Reason carried with it a significant dark side which meant that its
history could also be seen in a negative light. In fact, in the first chapter of Teorie e Storia
Tafuri argues that the revolution of reason was an ambiguous event.
For the architects of the Renaissance the conversation with history remained essential,
as shown by their strong orientation towards antiquity, and it is exactly here, in their
concern with history, that the problem for Tafuri arises. While reason had given the architects a new confidence to not only construct a system of meaning but also to confront
history with a new zeal, it was here that they also experienced their biggest setback.
Tafuri argues that the Renaissance architect would explore history searching for those
63
A tendency exists among Italian architectural historians to see architecture as a linguistic visual form and thus
as an act of thought. Architecture as a linguistic form means that architecture can communicate: it is not a passive
presence in society, but a participant in a cultural and political sense. It is also in this context that we should understand how Zevi’s plea for an organic architecture was at the same time a plea for a free and democratic architecture.
See Maguolo, Le Storie dell’architettura moderna, pp. 75 and 80.
64 Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Le strutture del linguaggio nella storia dell’architettura moderna’, in Teoria della progettazione
architettonica (Architettura e città 3), A. Locatelli (ed.), Bari, 1968.
65 Manfredo Tafuri, Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, Bari, 1968, Chapter one: ‘L’architettura moderna e l’eclissi
della storia’.
66 Tafuri refers in particular to Leon Battista Alberti, who was one of the most famous humanist architects of the
Italian Renaissance. In the fifteenth century, Alberti worked in Florence, where he studied Latin and Greek but also
architecture, perspective and painting. Alberti wrote a number of books which made him the first theorist of humanist
art. With treatises such as De Pictura (1435) and De Re Aedificatoria (1450), Alberti symbolized the passage from
the architect as craftsman to the architectus doctus, the learned architect. Besides theoretical work, Alberti also
designed, for instance, Tafuri found Alberti’s façade for the Santa Maria Novella in Florence to be an important work
by his hand.
101
elements that matched the system of meaning. However, in the course of this journey it
was inevitable that events would be encountered which contradicted their world view,
and which would be frightening, unsettling and confusing. It seemed as though the revolution of reason had established a new way of engaging with history, but that this was
accompanied by the means of its own subversion. Tafuri believed that architects such as
Brunelleschi and Alberti, who dealt with history in this way, engaged in what may be
called the first modern experience of history. These architects made historical material
actual, as they transformed it into an instrument or a weapon with which to provoke a
‘revolution’. However, the constructions of these architects were constantly in peril, as
history was in fact an unreliable ally, being both a source of the confirmation of ideas and
of the anguish at their failure.
Tafuri discusses Alberti’s design for the façade of the S. Maria Novella in Florence (145871) from this new perspective. In the history of architecture, this design is especially
renowned for the merging of existing elements and modern additions, a combination
which Alberti used to make a statement about his new humanist principles.
Tafuri considers that retaining a suggestion of earlier medieval times was a strategy adopted by Alberti in order to make the victory of the classical language clear in an almost
sadistic way, directly confronting the vanquished with its conqueror.67 Alberti, Tafuri
writes, wanted to theatrically represent the heroic victory of humanist reason over the
barbarism of medieval times. Tafuri warns, however, that Alberti was playing with fire.
While mixing pre-rationalist and rationalist experiences, Alberti could not help but
experience the strange seduction exercised by linguistic pluralism. It was a seduction that
he consciously structured by including these ‘contaminations’, or ‘infections’ in his
design. This was an example of how, for Tafuri, history consisted of a constant series of
crises. The history of modern architecture was centred on a crisis of meaning:
a semantics that was enforced by ‘theory’ and weakened by ‘history’. Thus, while Zevi
spoke of history in optimistic terms, Tafuri speaks of history in terms of danger.
However, this was not the only scandalous aspect of the book. Teorie e Storia also
became known for its focus on the position of the historian. For progressive historians
such as Zevi and Benevolo, the position of the historian could never be a topic of debate.
The historian was an enlightened teacher, a prophet, a missionary and a part of the same
avant-garde whose essence was being taught. Yet in Teorie e Storia, Tafuri dedicated three
out of six chapters to the position of the historian and critic. Moreover, he placed these
historians in an historical and analytic setting that was completely unheard of.
67 Tafuri, Teorie e Storia, p. 21.
68 Ibid., pp. 32-34.
69 Ibid., pp. 181-184. On p. 181, Tafuri says: ‘il sociologismo di uno Hauser appare del tutto improduttivo; quello, assai
più rigoroso e coerente, di un Benevolo, appare al di fuori di una concezione dialettica della storia, e si trova costretto
ad escludere – nell’afferrarsi ad un nuovo mito dell’ortodossia – molte delle più importanti esperienze dell’architettura
contemporanea.’
70 Ibid., p. 183: ‘in fondo, presupponendo l’incapacità degli architetti, o in genere del pubblico, ad affermare la
complessità e la specificità degli eventi storici, l’attualizzazione della storia sancisce consapevolmente il proliferare
del mito. E il mito è sempre contro la storia.’
102
Zevi spoke of the Renaissance as a climax in the institutionalization of architectural
language, which was to be repeated by the Modern Movement. Tafuri imagines the
architectural history of this period as being dominated by a movement in which solid
architectural meanings become unstuck – foundations dissolve and fixed social orders,
in which everything takes its appropriate place, disappear. Tafuri sees the infinite,
measureless space of Piranesi’s Carcere as a metaphor for this condition. Far from
providing stability and order, history can now, at its best, serve only as a library providing
ideological support.
In addition to the Renaissance, for Tafuri, the Enlightenment was another crucial phase
in the history of modernity.68 History loses its special status as a lesson for those in the
present – as a guiding light from the past – precisely when the most far-reaching changes
for the future are at stake. At such times history becomes a free-floating object among
other perfectly equivalent objects. In this way, Tafuri writes, history becomes autonomous
and as such an object among objects. It is strange that while reason reached a peak in its
potential during the Enlightenment, a period arrived concurrently that was marked by the
absence of critical and analytical theory to accompany the work of the artist. How could
this have happened? During the Enlightenment, Tafuri argues, architects became
concerned with the ‘projection’ of a better world – they wanted to convince the public that
the realization of such a world was plausible in the near future. Tafuri claims that the
essence of the Enlightenment consisted in the effort to elevate these ‘projections’ to reality, taking a step towards a better world, instead of wallowing in the misery of daily existence. Architectural design was a question of bringing to life a certain possibility. For architects and critics alike the challenge was to live one’s own projections, to stand within
them, as it were. Tafuri regards the Enlightenment as a paradoxical period. What was
considered necessary was belief and trust in an essentially reasonable future. The discourse about architecture that resulted was ruled by apodictic arguments; an incontestable, all too certain line of reasoning that was based in the authority of a history selected
in accordance with the light of reason. However, Tafuri argues that the arbitrary character
of this selection was hidden – nervously hidden – from the merciless public gaze.
Tafuri discusses the work of Leonardo Benevolo and Bruno Zevi in the light of the
contradictions of the Enlightenment. He considers the work of Benevolo, just like that of
Siegfried Giedion, to be dominated by what he refers to as ‘the myth of orthodoxy’,
whereby the historian constructs a simplified and coherent ‘Modern Movement’.69 It is
this that keeps Benevolo from including some of the most relevant architectural projects
of recent times in his history. Tafuri’s judgment of Zevi seems even harsher. Zevi is considered to have started from the conviction that the audience was incapable of grasping
the complexity of historical events. According to Tafuri the attempt to ‘actualize’ history by
moulding it into an attractive didactic format failed at each extreme. It failed to do justice
to history, to the verification of historical facts, but it equally failed architects working in
the present, because it could only produce myths that were irrelevant to them. In this way
Tafuri openly condemns Zevi’s studies of Biagio Rossetti and Borromini, stating that ‘the
myth is always against history’.70 Although such an attack was not totally unexpected,
Zevi was infuriated when Tafuri’s book was published. In September 1968, he published
a response in the journal L’architettura, storia e cronache, entitled ‘Myths and Historical
103
Resignation’. The Modern Movement had now gained, in Zevi’s eyes, an almost
melodramatic quality, as he reproached Tafuri of throwing:
➛ … dirt on every ideology, on the aspiration to create, through a diverse human
environment, more happiness, on the commitment to provide a house for every
family, even if it is minimal and for a minimal price, on every demand and quality,
on architecture as prophecy.71
71
Bruno Zevi, ‘Miti e rassegnazione storica’, L’architettura storia e cronache, 155, September 1968, p. 3: ‘Fango su
ogni ideologia, sull’aspirazione a creare, mediante un ambiente diverso, maggiore felicità umana, sull’impegno di
fornire ad ogni famiglia una casa, sia pur minima e al minimo costo, su ogni esigenza e qualità, sull’architettura come
profezia.’ Zevi is not strictly speaking of Tafuri’s Teorie e Storia here, but of a wider environment of architects of which
he feels that Tafuri is a part.
CHAPTER 4
PORTRAIT OF A HISTORIAN AS A YOUNG MAN
At the age of 26, Tafuri and the militant activist Massimo Teodori decided to write a letter
on behalf of the Associazione Studenti e Architetti di Roma to Ernesto Nathan Rogers,
the chief editor of the architectural journal Casabella Continuità.1 This was in 1961, one
year after Tafuri had graduated as an architect, and the topic of the letter was the quality
of education in the architectural schools. Rogers held a very firm position on the subject,
speaking of the ‘intellectual and moral poverty of Italian university life’, and the ‘malaise
provoked in the school by the academic spirit and by arbitrary compromises’.2 In their
letter, Tafuri and Teodori argued that the school was a ‘natural basis’ for some much
needed innovation in architecture and town planning. Only in the architectural school,
they argued, could the architect develop as an ‘architect-citizen’ instead of an ‘architecttechnician’.3 The authors lamented the absence of an ‘ideal orientation’ as a vital element
in the make-up of the architect-citizen. Architecture was taught in the schools by
idiosyncratic architects who remained caught up in ‘particularisms’ and ‘eccentric
behaviour’, while the country lacked a classe dirigente of architects able to deal
adequately with the rapid changes in society. Tafuri and Teodori drew a radical conclusion
from this situation: they claimed that the revolution in modern architecture had by-passed
the Italian schools of architecture.4
1 Massimo Teodori was a left-wing political activist and a student colleague of Tafuri. They both participated in the
Associazione Urbanisti ed Architetti (AUA) and they also wrote the letter as members of this group. See chapter 2 for
the activities of this group. Tafuri’s and Teodori’s letter was published in the section ‘Lettere al Direttore’: a forum in
which discussion among readers could take place. The occasion was the publication of an earlier letter, written by
the engineer Cosenza, which denounced the state of Italian architecture at that time. See M. Tafuri and M. Teodori,
‘Un dibattito sull’architettura e l’Urbanistica italiana’ (A Debate about Italian Architecture and Town Planning),
Casabella Continuità, no. 241, 1961, p. 56.
2 After the War, obstruction to the necessary reorganization of the architectural profession in combination with
the anti-modern sentiments in the university led to much dissatisfaction and protest. In Casabella Continuità during
the 1960s, Rogers gave ample space to the protests by students and professors against this policy. See, for instance, ‘Gli studenti architetti chiedono un rinnovamento dei programmi di studio’, published in Casabella Continuità,
no. 248, February 1961; and M. Teodori, ‘Il convegno “Per il rinnovamento della Facoltà di Roma”’, published in
Casabella Continuità, no. 258, December 1961. The debate lasted several years, see, for example, the preface written
by Rogers in March 1963, E.N. Rogers, ‘Evoluzione della vita universitaria’, Casabella Continuità, no. 273, March 1963.
See also the special issue of Casabella dedicated to the architectural schools in Italy: Casabella Continuità, no. 287,
May 1964. The letter sent by Tafuri and Teodori should be viewed as part of an effort, alongside Rogers, to give voice
to the dissatisfaction within the schools.
3 In their letter, Tafuri and Teodori stress that Italian schools are focused on the training of a class of technical
professionals: ‘avulsi dal contesto della realtà nella quale essi sono chiamati ad operare ed incapaci di comprendere
i profondi motivi che portano ad un cambiamento delle strutture della società’, Tafuri and Teodori, Un dibattito sull’architettura, p. 56.
4 In sostanza ciò significa che la rivoluzione dell’architettura moderna non è passata per la scuola, o almeno per la
Facoltà di architettura di Roma che più da vicino conosciamo’, ibid.
107
the architect Ludovico Quaroni, photo taken from Tafuri’s Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo...
Tafuri and Teodori argued that the teaching of history at the university was central to this
problem. As part of the ‘pride of professionalism’ – by which Tafuri and Teodori referred to
those architects at the university who turned away from society and identified only with
their professional status as architects – the history of architecture was treated as a
sequence of isolated styles and as a grammar ready for repeated use. What was completely lacking was a consideration of the context in which these styles originated, a
sense of the artistic styles as expressions of certain historical times, or of particular aspirations. Tafuri and Teodori spoke of the ‘elimination of each intrinsic historical notion’. In
contrast, they argued that for the development of an integrated, total vision as the basis
of architectural practice, a correct awareness of the architectural past was indispensable.5
For the authors, this ‘correct awareness of the architectural past’ could not include ‘facile
transpositions’ or ‘anachronistic regressions’. We may notice here already Tafuri’s
reservations with regard to operative history.
The time had come for Realpolitik: as Tafuri and Teodori argued at the end of their letter,
the time had come to let go of illusions and see reality for what it was.6 Architects should
accept that from now on they were inextricably bound up with the larger society.
However, Realpolitik should also fuel an architect’s attitude towards history. The history of
architecture should be historicized so as to gain insight into the interaction between
artistic production and the conditions created by the historical context. In summary, Tafuri
and Teodori argued for an academic training that allowed the architect to develop an
intensified awareness of reality and history, abandoning the one-dimensional character of
the architectural profession understood as strict professionalism, and the reductive
understanding of the history of architecture as a strict formal history of the sequence of
architectural styles.
TAFURI AND THE HOPES OF HISTORY
The theme of this chapter is the journey Tafuri takes in the years after his graduation, from
an operative history in the tradition of Zevi and Benevolo, to the use of history as a means
of historical critique. Already convinced of the weakness of operative history, Tafuri
experimented with different forms of architectural history, in articles published in
magazines, for example, and through his university teaching. In this way, around the
second half of his twenties he slowly matured, moving towards a radically different use of
5
‘Solo un’adeguata preparazione storica dello studente architetto avrebbe potuto fornire gli strumenti per
interpretare giustamente i fenomeni del passato e quindi per farne elementi attivi del presente senza facili trasposizioni ad anacronistici ritorni.’ Ibid.
6 According to wordreference.com, the term Realpolitik means a ‘ruthlessly, realistic and opportunistic approach to
statesmanship, rather than a moralistic one.’ Tafuri and his colleagues used this term in an informal, loose way,
for example, in the book Teorie del Moderno, architettura Germania 1880-1920, Francesco Dal Co studied German
political thought as a part of urban politics and ideology. Realpolitik was for him an important strategy employed,
for example, by enlightened industrialists, planners, politicians and architects. See Francesco Dal Co, Teorie del
Moderno, Architettura Germania 1880-1920, Bari, 1982.
109
architectural history. Tafuri came to consider history as a major instrument of critique, yet
found that the critical effect of history could only be guaranteed if it was radically divorced
from architectural practice. Only in that sense could history be part of a discourse that
counterbalanced the issues of the day. While Tafuri saw an attempt to actualize history in
the works of many of his historian colleagues, he began to imagine an architectural
history that derived its force from its radical difference, its nonconformity with respect to
the concerns of the present. The passage from operative history to historical critique also
had consequences for the relationship between architectural history and ideology. In the
period after his graduation Tafuri took the first step towards using history as a means of
ideological critique. Later, in 1968, Teorie e Storia would declare that operative history was
also an ideological history par excellence, in which the historical analysis was always
accompanied by preconceived ideological notions.7 The difference between operative
history and historical critique, for Tafuri, was the same as the difference between
ideological criticism, and the critique of all forms of ideology as a form of debunking.
As Tafuri would later declare in an interview: ‘There is no criticism, only history’,
suggesting that the only way to be truly critical is by confronting the present with the
radically different character of the past.8
At the beginning of his career, the question for Tafuri was whether architectural history,
apart from operative rhetoric, could still have a supportive function for the architects of his
time. Tafuri experimented with different roles for history: for example, he gave a rather
complicated course in modern architectural history which defied the didactic simplicity of
Benevolo’s Storia dell’architettura moderna (1960). Together with the architectural historian Mario Manieri Elia he speculated about how to correctly assess the architect and
political activist William Morris, resulting in an essay in which Tafuri tried to distance himself, as a left-wing historian, from the hopes and ideals of Morris. These experiments
were for Tafuri also a matter of Realpolitik. In fact, Tafuri criticized Bruno Zevi for not fulfilling his operative promises.9 However ‘operative’, Zevi’s history did not become a vital element in Italian architectural culture. Architects, Tafuri claimed, would benefit more from a
sober historical account; from history as a matter-of-fact Realpolitik. Only in this way
would they become aware of the real possibilities available to them to intervene in society. For example, in the letter to Casabella Continuità, a young Tafuri together with Teodori, explored the possibilities of a rejuvenated Modern Movement in a changed Italian
society. As Giorgio Ciucci shows, Tafuri’s examination of the role of history was also determined by the critical testing of the precepts of rational modernism.10 The stress on the
rational assumptions of modernism led Tafuri to also question the enlightened progression of modern architectural history. His passion for history was thus intimately connected
to the questioning of the role of history in the crisis of contemporary architecture.
In this way, Tafuri’s thinking about the role of the historian and the nature of architectural history was intertwined with the hopes he invested in a revitalization of the Modern
7 Manfredo Tafuri, Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, Bari, 1968, p. 149.
8 ‘There is no criticism, only history – Richard Ingersoll interviews Manfredo Tafuri’, Design Book Review, 1986,
reprinted in Casabella, January-February 1995, pp. 97-99.
9 Tafuri, Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, p. 168.
110
Movement. For Tafuri there was a connection between the re-examination of modernist
methodology – regarding, for example, the planning of cities – and the possibilities designated to architectural history. However, the intensity with which many architects dealt
with this matter after the War should be seen against the background of a particular
‘grand narrative’ that was important to many of them. It was the history of Italian
modernist architecture during the Fascist regime that was decisive in the plea for
professional and institutional reform after the Second World War. After this false start,
the Modern Movement would finally prove its real value in a changed, democratic Italy.
For Tafuri the question was whether the historical accounts by Zevi and Benevolo provided the appropriate kind of critical support to accompany this process.
THE BURDEN OF FASCISM
The difficult experiences of architects during the fascist regime placed a heavy burden
upon Italy’s reconstruction after the War. At the start of the 1930s, the debate within
architecture was dominated by a strong opposition between two groups: there was the
avant-garde Gruppo 7 from Milan, whose ideas about a modernist and ‘rational’
architecture sharply diverged from those of the so-called Roman School, who proposed a
monumental and neo-classical building style. With the increased power of the fascists in
the 1930s a battle broke out between the two camps about the question of which style
would most aptly represent the goals of the regime. The situation became increasingly
confusing, when during the second half of the 1930s the two movements began a process of compromise in which the modernists displayed a striking willingness to revise
their vocabulary so as to coexist with the academics.
Within the context of this struggle, the E42 world exhibition in Rome symbolized the
new policy of compromise. Adalberto Libera, one of the founding members of the Gruppo
7, designed a ‘Palazzo dei ricevimenti e dei congressi’ for the occasion (1937-42).
It consisted of an atrium with large granite columns, followed by a huge central hall.
In this way, the building was reminiscent of a Roman basilica, while still being executed
with the most modern of building techniques.11 The E42 world exhibition – which was
never held – showed very clearly the aim of the fascist regime to use architecture as a
metaphor for its political intentions. However, while the modern ‘rational’ architects had
already made large concessions in order to survive, the modernist drama reached a climax
when Mussolini finally rejected modern architecture as the official ‘arte di Stato’.
By the time Terragni had finished what might be considered the key work of rationalist
architecture, the Casa del Fascio in Como (1932-36), Mussolini had already decided to
10 Giorgio Ciucci, The Formative Years, p. 15.
11 At the E42 world exhibition the ultra-modern Palazzo della Civiltà del Lavoro, designed by Guerini, Bruno La Padula
and Romano, 1938-42 was eye-catching. This building was designed as a huge white square block, with a façade that
consisted of a grid of stacked arches. People soon began to call it ‘the square Colosseum’: the contrast between this
building and the heavy, monumental forms of the other constructions was very great indeed. See Guida d’Italia: Roma,
Touring Club Italiano, Milano, 1993 (8th edition), p. 783.
111
Italian architecture from 1844-1994, represented as a diseased tree. Picture taken from the journal Domus,
October 1994
reject rationalism and to support academicism. From a ‘mere’ debate about architectural
style, deciding between rationalism and academicism now became a matter of life and
death. Estranged from fascism, rationalist architects such as Giuseppe Pagano and Gian
Luigi Banfi decided to fight the regime and later died in German concentration camps.
After Mussolini’s death in 1945, Italian architectural culture underwent a profound crisis.
Rationalist architects had to face the difficult truth of their collaboration with the regime,
while the academic architects who had identified themselves so closely with the aims of
fascism could not see a meaningful way of continuing after its end. In undergoing such
crises, architecture became involved in the post-war vacuum, a state that was already a
reality for many other parts of society.12
Manfredo Tafuri was profoundly affected by the fascist period. It not only encroached
deeply on his personal life, for the legacy of fascism also dominated the post-war
academic climate. For instance, as Tafuri recounts in an interview about the university:
‘But the terrible thing was that all the professors teaching the most important subjects
were fascists.’13 After the War, there were generally speaking two ways of coming to
terms with the recent past. Firstly, there was the optimism of the historian Bruno Zevi.
Although the modernist Italian architects had collaborated with fascism, Zevi did not reject
them. This may seem a contradictory position for, as a Jew who was forced to flee his
country during the War, Zevi was very much aware of the despicable nature of fascism.
However, for Zevi the failures of rationalist architecture were part of an essential process
of learning, of becoming mature. Rationalism, with all its mistakes, was the stage which
would precede a more advanced form of architecture: organic architecture. Importantly,
the term ‘organic architecture’ did not so much stand for a stylistic vocabulary, but for an
explicitly ethical content. For Zevi, organic architecture offered the possibility of directly
expressing such values as democracy and freedom in architecture.
Secondly, however, were architects such as Ludovico Quaroni and Ernesto Nathan Rogers, who published in such journals as Casabella Continuità, and who took a completely
different position. They considered that the intimate connection between the ‘revolution’
of fascism and the revolution of modern architecture could only lead to one conclusion:
that what was necessary was a fundamental reconsideration of the concept of modern
architecture. So, while Zevi did not question the principles of the avant-garde, considering
that modern ‘organic’ architecture remained within this tradition, a group of architects
around Rogers and Quaroni started to critically rethink the history of modern architecture.
Tafuri was part of this group and together with architects such as Aldo Rossi and Vittorio
Gregotti, he developed a more critically distanced position with respect to the Modern
12
For the history of Italian architecture during fascism see Giorgio Ciucci and Francesco Dal Co, Atlante dell’architettura italiana del Novecento, Milano, 1991; Vittorio Gregotti, New directions in Italian Architecture, London, 1968;
and Giorgio Ciucci, Gli architetti e il fascismo, architettura e città 1922-1944, Torino, 1989. This is only a selection, many
other books have been written on the subject. For this account of architectural history during the fascism period, I have
used a document on the internet: Italienische Architektur der Nachkriegszeit und deren Spiegelungen in der Gegenwart,
dissertation by Hans-Jürgen Breuning, 1999, Universität Stuttgart, at:
http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2000/599.
13 Passerini, History as a Project, p. 17. See Chapter 2 of this book for Tafuri’s life under fascism.
113
Rome, Tiburtino quarter, 1947-1954
Movement in architecture. However, for Rogers and Quaroni, and also for younger
architects such as Rossi, Gregotti, and Tafuri, this reassessment of modernism was
painful as despite their critique they nonetheless felt themselves to be part of its
legacy.14
In Italy, the past was no longer a matter of eternal glory. From this perspective,
the Spanish art critic Tomas Llorens developed a hypothesis relevant to Tafuri’s
conversion to non-operative history.15 Llorens connects Tafuri’s ‘turn’ to a general crisis of
the European left-wing at the end of the 1960s. The year 1968 meant the end of a cycle
of modernism that, according to Llorens, started immediately after the War with the
formulation of a neo-avant-garde. The optimistic humanism that pervaded this attempt,
a humanism that Llorens also recognizes in the Marxist thought of those years, appeared
to be no longer viable for the ’68 intellectuals. Tafuri’s non-operative history should thus
be seen as an attempt to rescue the avant-garde while accepting the indefensibility of
humanism. Llorens refers to the difficult narrative structure of books such as Teorie e
Storia (1968) and Progetto e Utopia (1973). In this structure, he recognizes a new,
non-humanistic avant-garde attitude. Tafuri chooses to no longer base his writing on the
facts of empirical reality, but instead to superimpose a discourse upon reality. In Llorens’
view, Tafuri preached this modernity without humanism in the production of a kind of
prose that in every case excluded the ‘traditional’ commitment of the historian to the
architect. For Tafuri, a non-operative history implied the choice of what is essentially a
meta-discourse: because the past no longer has an instrumental function for the architect,
the material substances of that past – the buildings or objects – can be obliterated.16
For example, Teorie e Storia is no longer a book about architectural reality, but rather a
book that runs parallel to architectural reality. What remains, Llorens argues, is a
solipsistic history cut off from reality, which also denies the possibility of contributing to
that reality.
Although Llorens’ hypothesis of Tafuri’s solipsism remains open to debate, he made it
clear that the difficulty of comprehending Tafuri’s books is related to the distance from the
operative model and the practice of historical critique. Instead of the modernist claim for
architectural history, with its belief in a perfect correspondence between the facts of
reality and the writing about that reality, Tafuri comes up with an ‘epistemological
superimposition’: a discourse that has such an explicit meta-character that its object
threatens to disappear from view.
14
For a discussion of this theme in a wider context see S.W. Goldhagen, R. Legault (eds.), Anxious Modernisms,
Experimentation in Post-war Architectural Culture, Montreal and Cambridge, 2000.
15 Tomas Llorens, ‘Manfredo Tafuri: Neo-Avant-garde and History’, Architectural Design Profile, no. 51, 1981, special
edition: ‘On the Methodology of Architectural History’, pp. 83-93.
16 ‘Instead, the neo-avant-gardists conceive of the a priori as overlapping the empirical world in such a manner that,
to all epistemological effect, it obliterates it.’ Llorens sees the ultimate goal of Tafuri’s attempt as the rescue, after
all, of a new avant-garde. Ibid., p. 93. Llorens’ critical tone about this development also points to Tafuri’s apparent
lack of self-criticism.
117
NEW DIMENSIONS
Before and after his graduation Tafuri was involved in design projects on different occasions and with different groups. For example, the architect and historian Leonardo
Benevolo invited him to participate in the competition for the National Library in Rome
while Tafuri was still a student in 1959, the group winning first prize for their project.17
However, Tafuri did not design, but seems to have played an advisory role. In 1962
Manfredo Tafuri, Giorgio Piccinato and Vieri Quilici, acting as members of the
Associazione Urbanisti ed Architetti (AUA), wrote an article which was published in
Casabella Continuità and which exemplifies the kind of publications that the group was
producing at the time. The article was called: ‘La città territorio – verso una nuova dimensione’, (The City-territory, Towards a New Dimension).18 They did not write about a
specific building or city planning project, but rather provided an extended commentary on
an important theme in the architectural debate at that time.
A year earlier, in their letter to Casabella Continuità, Tafuri and Teodori had written that
architecture and town planning had become matters of ‘strategic large-scale planning’.
The responsibilities of planning had considerably increased, as its practices now directly
concerned the ‘formation of the structures of society’ – economics and sociology had
now become indispensable subjects for the town planner. In the article ‘La città territorio
– verso una nuova dimensione’, the members of the AUA further elaborated on this
theme. Initially, Tafuri and his colleagues noted the growth of the city far beyond its traditional boundaries. The city had exploded, so to speak, and its fragments were now spread
out over the entire surrounding area, hence the term ‘city-territory’, or city-region. The
question they were addressing concerned the precise consequences of this change.
In this way, Tafuri became a participant in an environment that was already different to
that of the Reconstruction. While architectural projects such as the new residential
quarter of Tiburtino in Rome (1949-54) had been completed in a society that was still
underdeveloped in many aspects, towards the end of the 1950s Italy changed decisively
as it experienced a period of unparalleled economic growth.19 It was during this period
that the affluent society gained a foothold in Italy, introducing into Italian life such modern
phenomena as consumerism, Fordism and mass communication. Italian society during
this period was affected to a great extent by technological progress, for example, in the
FIAT factories in Turin or in the petrochemical industries in the Veneto and Tuscany.20
When Tafuri and Teodori spoke of ‘strategic large-scale planning’ and ‘the formation of the
structures of society’, they were referring to this new social reality.
17 See ibid., p. 19.
18
Giorgio Piccinato, Vieri Quilici and Manfredo Tafuri: ‘La città territorio – verso una nuova dimensione’,
Casabella Continuità, no. 270, 1962, pp. 16-25.
19 See Paul Ginsborg, Storia d’Italia dal dopoguerra a oggi, società e politica 1943-1988, Torino, 1989, p. 283.
20 During this period Italy experienced a strong miracolo economico, which among other reasons was due to the fact
that Italy did not have a protectionist economy, in contrast to many other European countries. Also, the effect of the
Marshall Aid was considerable, as for the United States, the development of democracy in Italy was important due to
the country’s totalitarian, fascist past. See K. Schuyt and E. Taverne, 1950: Prosperity and Welfare (Dutch Culture in a
European Context, 4), Assen: London, 2004, p. 61ff.
118
Italy’s reconstruction after the War had been difficult, especially with regard to urban
planning.21 On different occasions, architects and urban planners had battled to implement instrumentalities which would exert control over the growth of cities. However,
many of these battles were lost, as has been mentioned, and so the degree to which planners could exert any real control over territorial developments was limited. On a national
level, efforts to give control of the development of the nation to the regulating forces of
planning procedures were not always supported by the government and speculation was
allowed a free rein. In Rome, the controversy that broke out in the 1950s about the
creation of a new Piano Regolatore, a new developmental plan, exemplifies this period.
To fight speculation in the building industry and the administrative corruption in the public
sector, a committee was formed at the beginning of the 1950s in which, amongst others,
the architects Ludovico Quaroni and Luigi Piccinato took part. They developed a scheme,
the so-called Piano Cet, in which the historical city centre of Rome was protected from
architectural interventions, by projecting the new developments upon an axial scheme
that started in the outer areas of the centre and ended at the grounds of the EUR (Esposizione Universale di Roma). The three poles of development alongside this axis, Pietralata, Centocelle and the EUR were designed according to the principles of zoning. They
aimed at a gradual decrease of residential and an increase of tertiary functions towards
the periphery. However, the plan became entangled in the long and viscous processes of
governmental decision making and in the end was never realized.22
As a young professional in the field of architecture and planning, Tafuri met architects
who reacted to the rapid changes in Italian society by initiating a debate about the role of
the urban planner. Architects such as Giuseppe Samonà and Ludovico Quaroni
reconsidered the cultural and intellectual premisses of their profession and in addition
reflected on the social role of the architect-planner.23 The question concerned the appropriateness of urbanistica as it had been developed in the 1930s, to deal with the developments in a rapidly changing society. The enlightened industrialist Adriano Olivetti (19011960) proposed a redefinition of planning as a multidisciplinary subject which included the
study of sociology and anthropology, in an attempt to establish direct contact with
society.24 However, a reconsideration of those elements that were proper to the legacy of
the Modern Movement was a part of this process. Especially rationalism as in important
premise for modernist urban planning was especially brought into question, leading to the
rejection of the modernist formula: ‘form follows function’. Architects now realized that
21 See Giorgio Majoli, ‘Breve storia della legislazione Urbanisticain Italia da 1865 al 2000’, 2000,
at http://www.verdiregionelombardia.net.
22 M. Tafuri, Storia dell’architettura italiana 1944-1985, Torino, 1982, p. 83.
23 See for example the following quote from an article written by Samonà: ‘The intense and increasingly comprehensive diligence of the planners has placed a number of problems in the foreground regarding, most of all, the aims, and,
as a consequence, the methodology of the research into urban design.’ Giuseppe Samonà, ‘Positivismo e storicismo
nella cultura Urbanistica oggi’, Casabella Continuità, February-March 1954, now published in G. Ciucci and F. Dal Co,
Atlante dell’ architettura italiana del Novecento, Milano, 1991, p. 197.
24 See Carlo Olmo, Urbanistica e società civile, Esperienza e conoscenza 1945-1960 (Pubblicazioni della Fondazione
Adriano Olivetti), Torino, 1992. See also Patrizia Bonifazio et al., Olivetti Builds, Modern Architecture in Ivrea, Guide to
the Open Air Museum, Milano, 2001.
119
the article La città territorio, written by the AUA, 1962
decisions concerning form could not always be considered to be an outcome of purely
rational inquiry. In addition, an ongoing topic of debate was the possibility of the
autonomous status of urbanistica considered as a discipline separate from
architecture.25
At the beginning of the 1960s, the tide was turning for Italian architects and planners.
The rapidly growing industrial sector wanted to ensure a more rational use of land and
was increasingly at odds with the speculative practices of the housing sector. Influenced
as well by the first centre-left government, who had a positive attitude towards the reform
of urban planning, the debate about urban, regional and national planning was pursued
with renewed vigour. In 1960 the Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica launched an official
programme for the reform of planning practice, called the Codice dell’Urbanistica. One of
the proposals was to connect planning procedures on an urban and regional level to the
programmes for economic growth on a national level. Among the architects who worked
on the Codice were Giuseppe Samonà, Luigi Piccinato and Giovanni Astengo.
Modern phenomena such as mass communication, industrial expansion and the rise of
a consumer society all seemed to announce a new period in Italian post-war history.
The time of the ‘piccole utopie’ such as the Tiburtino quarter with its intimate, folk-like
language had come to an end: a period of Realpolitik had arrived. Many architects and
urban planners believed that the most distinctive feature of the new era was a certain loss
of limits, enabling a new mobility, and a new spirit which could overcome boundaries.
Architects translated this new freedom into the creation of the ‘city-region’. Urban life
would change in its scale and size: it now started to spread out over an entire surrounding
area. During a conference held in 1962, the urban planner Giancarlo De Carlo announced
the end of planning according to a fixed model. He defined the new city as a ‘whole of
dynamic relationships . . . a territorial galaxy of specialized settlements’.26 It was clear that
a city in continuous movement and change a new type of urban intervention: the creation
of a universal form for a street or a square would no longer be sufficient.27
25 See Ciucci and Dal Co, Atlante dell’architettura italiana del Novecento, pp. 43-57 and p. 191.
26 Tafuri, Storia dell’architettura italiana 1944-1985, p. 98.
27 An important publication in this context was Vittorio Gregotti’s Il territorio dell’ architettura (1966). Influenced by the
new directions of structuralism, semiotics and the French School of Geography, Gregotti theorized about the discovery
of geography and ‘territory’ or ‘region’ as the new scale for urban development, bringing with it a new sense of history
and contextuality. For Gregotti the question concerned the formal consequences of this new parameter, the ‘form of
the territory’. In Teorie e Storia Tafuri also mentioned this publication: he focused on Gregotti’s use of history as a ‘new
instrument of planning’. Tafuri places Gregotti’s attempt to establish a new contact with history in the context of a no
longer convincing Modern Movement; interestingly, he mentions the insecurity of a new period as the reason to ‘dig
into the thick layer of the past’, which in the end, however, only confirms the instability of the present. ‘Il territorio
dell’architettura’ in this way also alludes, on a meta-level, to the sense of being an architect. Vittorio Gregotti, Il
territorio dell’architettura, Milano, 1966. Manfredo Tafuri, Theories and History of Architecture, pp. 53-54. For a reassessment of Gregotti’s book see Sara Protasoni, ‘Architettura e paesaggio tra geografia e storia. “Il territorio dell’
architettura” di Vittorio Gregotti (1966)’, in P. Lombardo et al., Architettura Spazio Scritto – forme e techniche delle
teorie dell’architettura in Italia dal 1945 ad oggi, Torino, 2001, pp. 63-71.
121
During these years, Giuseppe Samonà published his influential L’urbanistica e l’avvenire
delle città europee (1959) in which he attacked the commonplaces of urban and town
planning history. In this work, Samonà proved himself to be a passionate defender of the
big city and criticized the sociologically based theories of community, together with the
excessive scholarly attention to the garden city tradition which, according to Samonà,
was sponsored by the building industry. Most of all, Samonà wanted to write a different
urban history, one from which the ‘nuova dimensione’ of territorial transformation could
be explained more logically. He spoke of the new discipline of urban planning in a time of
‘extra-urban developments’ and pointed to Greater London and the French villes
nouvelles as international evidence of this development.28
The discipline of urban planning needed to be reassessed and the participants in this
discussion were thus focused on methodology. What methodology would be able to cope
with the complex forms of a ‘super-dimensioned’ city? This debate also dominated the
journal Casabella Continuità at the beginning of the 1960s. The journal published articles
about the interventions by the Japanese architect Kenzo Tange at Boston Bay and in Tokyo (1960). They also published articles on the city-territory, and about the development
of ‘centri direzionali’ – the depopulation of city centres – and American reality.
The redefinition of the planning discipline went hand in hand with the so-called ‘crisis of
the model’: architects were increasingly dissatisfied with a conception of urban planning
as the elaboration of a series of blueprints for the future. As Tafuri shows, this criticism
corresponded to a wider intellectual and cultural climate in Italy in which preconceived
models and formulas were being denounced, leading to the singular interpretations of
Marxism by Panzieri, Fortini and Vittorini, amongst others.29
The article by the AUA, ‘La Città Territorio – verso una nuova dimensione’, is representative of the intellectual climate that dominated Casabella Continuità during those years.
The authors spoke of a ‘cambiamento di scala’, a change of scale that manifested itself in
the city and its surroundings. They were concerned with the question of how to
comprehend these new developments in the light of the legacy of the Modern
Movement. The failure of Italian architects and urban planners to make efficient plans for
the new society was explained as arising from the shortcomings of modernism itself.
The authors state that although the possible disappearance of an absolute boundary between the city and the countryside had been intuited by modern architects, their attempts
28
The publication of this book was an important milestone leading towards a different way of perceiving the discipline of town planning, beyond a purely visual and romantic conception of historical towns. According to Samonà,
town planning was bound to society by an indissoluble tie. He thus connected his discipline to sociological theories,
for instance, by Tönnies, Veblen, Geddes, and economic theories, for instance by Riccardo, Smith and Malthus.
With this book, Samonà stressed the knowledgeable basis of the discipline. To him, urban planning was not only a
matter of technical control, but had its roots in a certain way of thinking about the city. Samonà paid attention to the
urban form as a product of both permanence and change and he pointed to the relevance of areas outside the city
centre. See E. Taverne, ‘Layouts and fabrics, architekten ‘maken’ de stad, 1930-1990’, Reader Institute for Art and
Architectural History, academic year 1992; Giuseppe monà, L’Urbanistica e l’avvenire della città negli stati europei,
Bari, 1959. See also P. di Biagi, P. Gabellini, ed., Urbanisti Italiani, Piccinato, Marconi, Samona, Quaroni, De Carlo,
Astengo, Campos Venuti, Bari, 1992.
122
to concretize these thoughts never exceeded the level of theory. The article considered
that the ‘cult of the brilliant individual’ should be held responsible for this failure. It argued
that the very myth of the artistic genius, as a ‘pioneer’ or as a ‘hero’, prevented architects
from developing an authentic and altruistic perspective on the people and their
interests.30
After the War, when society at large was caught up in a maelstrom of transformation,
modern architects and town planners had to pay the price for this elitist attitude.
As a result, while the country changed drastically in its social-economic, physical,
demographic and cultural dimensions, architects had very little say in the process.31
According to the authors, the solution to these problems was to be found in a new focus
on method. It was not so much a question of developing new instruments with which to
intervene in reality, but rather that a more fundamental step had to be taken first: the ‘lettura stessa dei fenomeni reali cui applicare tali modi’ – the ‘reading’, or the interpretation,
of the phenomena of reality.32
Tafuri, Quilici and Piccinato demonstrated a well crystallized notion of the new planning
practice. From Giuseppe Samonà’s L’urbanistica e l’ avvenire della citta they deduced
what may be called an open and refined way of using a ‘model’. Samonà proposed the
use of urban ‘models’ based on a ‘flexibility that leaves open the definitive solutions’.33
The outcomes of the competition for the design of a residential quarter at the Barene di
San Giuliano in Venezia-Mestre (1959) are considered by the authors to be concrete
examples of the new road to be taken by urban planning. Those architects who did not
start from one specific method which had been raised to the level of an absolute guide,
but who had a more pragmatic and open attitude instead, produced the best entries.34
These architects developed plans in which the new quarter was scattered and spread
across the environment. Urban planning here did not entail the formulation of a fixed
urban form, to be superimposed upon the environment, but an open, flexible distribution
of housing blocks that could fuse with the existing built structures. At the same time, the
29 Tafuri, Storia dell’architettura italiana 1944-1985, p. 97.
30 For example: ‘the inadequate character of a type of culture that, in order to be closer to the individual, ignored
society, or at least, its physical and historical “environment”.’ Piccinato, Quilici and Tafuri, La città territorio, p. 16.
31 For example, see the following: ‘Once more, that is, reality has evolved in a way that is profoundly faster and, as
a matter of fact, more creative than the cultural forces were able to predict.’ The article contains many of these sort
of remarks. Ibid., p. 16.
32 In the article they write: ‘If they didn’t succeed in cutting into the Italian reality, this depended, in our opinion, for
a great part on a failed comprehension that not so much applied to the strategies of intervention, but to the reading
of the actual phenomena on which those strategies had to be applied themselves. In short, that famous “approaching”
the reality of the country, has failed in its most definitive manner, this while the development received increasingly
irreversible traits.’ Piccinato, Quilici, and Tafuri, La città territorio, p. 16. (my italics )
33 Ibid., p. 17. The authors quote Samonà here, from his book L’Urbanistica e l’avvenire della città. The authors were
also influenced by Umberto Eco’s Opera Aperta in this vision.
34 It is in this context that the authors also quote the Roman architect Ludovico Quaroni: ‘the idea of a choice does not
necessarily have to lead to “unicity” because it may lead to multiplicity, or at least, to a certain form of multiplicity, to
a certain form of integration.’ Ibid., p. 18.
123
La città territorio, special lay-out made by the AUA to accompany the article
creation of a clear form could function as a central ‘visual spine’ giving coherence to the
new ensemble. Thus, in the new urban area of the ‘city-territory’ the architect had one
particular instrument with which to exert a substantial influence: what Tafuri would later
call the ‘volontà di forma’ – a will-to-form.35
Clearly, the competition for the design of a new residential area at San Giuliano, Mestre
(1959) was an important event for Italian architects and planners, with many architects
considering it to be the beginning of a new era in urban planning. In the evaluation of the
event by Tafuri and his colleagues Quaroni’s example especially looms large.
In fact, for Tafuri and his friends, Quaroni’s entry for the competition was the exemplum
representing the AUA’s new insights, as Quaroni’s proposal most clearly originated in a
rejection of the modernist unity of method, which was now exchanged for an experimentation with different methods for different scales. In Quaroni’s design, the new residential
area was marked by a series of grand, semi-circular buildings – hinting in this way at the
curved forms of Le Corbusier’s megastructural ‘Plan Obus’ at Algiers, which reflected the
bay. These formed the visual spine of the Venetian quarter. While on this macro-level the
form of the quarter was clearly determined by an architect who seemed to be working as
an urbanist-demiurgos, on the micro-level Quaroni assumed the identity of an
urbanist-bricoleur, designing an informal series of houses whose precise urban form and
structure was deliberately left unresolved. Quaroni designed an ‘opera aperta urbana’ as
Tafuri later noted in Storia dell’architettura italiana: his proposal was to reconcile the last
attempt to solve complex spatial problems by way of urban form with an opening towards
an ‘aesthetics of the undetermined’ as a new perspective for the urban planner.36
The city-region was such a relevant theme for Tafuri, Quilici and Piccinato because it
was here that they localized the crisis of modernism in architecture. They argued that the
revolution in modern architecture had consisted in a shift from form to method: it had
been the ambition of modern architects to intervene directly in the lives of people, so as
to organize life in a better way. Unity of method was crucial: there was one, universal rule
which had to be applied to all ‘levels’, from a chair in the living room to the urban plan of
a whole city. It was this principle that was questioned by the authors and they now
reflected upon its intellectual assumptions. They found that urban planning had always
been seen as a logical deduction – in the form of an artistic ‘model’ – from a set of
universal laws. This was a direct consequence of the enlightened, rational origin of the
discipline.37 The rationalist method started with the division of each problem into a series
of secondary problems, moreover, it assumed that theory could be directly translated into
a set of ‘operative’ rules for practice.38 In the present, the authors argued, such ‘operative
35 See Tafuri, Storia dell’architettura italiana 1944-1985, p. 95.
36
Ibid., p.96. See Ciucci and Dal Co, Atlante dell’ architettura Italiana del Novecento, pp. 50-53. See also a remark
by the Spanish architect Manuel de Sola Morales: ‘What is perhaps most fundamental about Quaroni’s attitude . .
. is this confidence in the urban form as an observable cultural event and as a field for operative, practical project
design.’ M. de Sola-Morales, ‘Quaroni, a Distant Lucidity’, Revista Urbanismo, 7, 1989, special issue ‘Ludovico Quaroni,
decerca’, p. 39.
37 ‘European town planning, of enlightened, even more than rational, origin’ (L’Urbanistica europea, per la sua origine
illuministica, ancor prima che razionalistica)’ Piccinato, Quilici and Tafuri, La città territorio, p. 19.
126
models’ are no longer valid. Instead, they found that modern architecture should be based
on a new definition of rationality. The growth of the city into a city-region had shown that
the application of one method to all levels of intervention was no longer tenable: the city
had become too large, too dynamic, and too complex. A differentiation had to be made
between various levels of design, between the micro-scale of furniture and the
macro-scale of the comprehensive city-plan. For the authors, the ‘new rationality’
entailed, in the first place, an awareness of the complexity of the work of the architect and
urban planner. However, they also spoke of a shifting of accent from the a priori
assumption of a ‘model’ to an a posteriori process of verification, and of bringing a set of
working tools up to date.
➛ The introduction of a working hypothesis that doesn’t translate itself into a model,
but organizes and structures itself into a configuration that assures a flexibility.39
Instead of the ‘bombast of a model’, it is now the modesty of a ‘working hypothesis’.
As stated elsewhere in the article, town planners should come to the formulation of a
‘dato modificatore’, a ‘key for intervention’ that is entirely immersed in the dramatic
situation of contemporary society, and that in no way tries to transcend society and lift
itself above the fray. However, this also had consequences for the way in which history
was conceived of by Tafuri, Quilici and Piccinato. The history of the Modern Movement
should also no longer be regarded from the point of view of the unity of method. The idea
of the Modern Movement as being unified by one, universal thought, by a sort of
equalizing power, was an illusion. It was time to see the Realpolitik of the Modern
Movement as a contradictory assembly of many voices, many ‘levels’, and in which many
parties interacted.40 This was also the way in which its history should be written.
The authors of ‘La Città Territorio – verso una nuova dimensione’ pointed to the passage
from a one dimensional to a more complex world in which each analysis could only be
executed in single steps each of which requires verification. Moreover, the a posteriori
basis of their work now implied a constant self-questioning which limited the claims of
both the historian and the architect.41
38
‘Having overcome the systematic method of rationalist origin that was preoccupied with breaking down each
complex problem in particular problems, each of them solvable separately (at the limit of not recreating the synthesis
on the basis of an a posteriori organization), to draw directly from the complexity and contrariety of a reality in which
one has to operate . . . the first, by now traditional, characteristics of modern town planning – that is, the character of
the ‘operative model’ given to each working hypothesis is automatically overthrown.’ Ibid., p. 19.
39 ‘L’introduzione di una ipotesi di lavoro che non si traduca in un modello, bensi si organizzi e si strutturi in una
configurazione che assicuri una flessibilità’, ibid., p. 19.
40 Giorgio Ciucci says about this coupling of architectural and historical criticism: ‘This led to the necessity, on the one
hand, to rethink the “extremely composite character of the architecture of the last two centuries” and on the other to
employ a new “methodology of intervention” based on a planning which would permit flexibility at lower levels, creating an “open architecture” as a spatial structure capable of accepting increasing levels of freedom’, Giorgio Ciucci,
‘Gli anni della formazione’, Casabella, 1995, p. 19. Ciucci also mentions that it was phenomenology, with its attack on
established systems of knowledge, that formed the inspiration for this new strategy.
127
Ludovico Quaroni, design for the Barene di San Giuliano, 1959, model and bird’s-eye view
DIFFERENT REALISMS
During this period, Tafuri developed his thinking about architectural history by developing
an analogy with respect to the re-examination of the Modern Movement. The rationalist
principles of modern architecture had led to a conception of planning as a blueprint for the
future, but it had also led to a rigidification of its history as a unified Modern Movement.
That is, Tafuri reflected on the intellectual background of the crisis of modern architecture
and so linked its problematic rationalism to the problematic position of enlightened
reason. The a priori belief in rationalism as a liberating power was no longer legitimate.
Beyond these grand narratives, the time had come for a more cautious, a posteriori
historical tracing.
In his design for the new quarter at the Barene di San Giuliano, Quaroni had tried to
avoid the clichéd image of Venice and its lagoon by studying the morphological texture of
this area as open-mindedly as possible. The radial structure of Quaroni’s plan was not a
visual copy of Venice, but responded in an indirect way to the structures of its ancient
urban tissue. As Ciucci and Dal Co suggest, Quaroni abstracted himself from history, considering that, viewed from the new city, the old one became a distant spectacle; an ancient presence lingering, unapproachable, far on the horizon.42
However, while Quaroni was elaborating his proposal for the new quarter, on the other
side of the lagoon the architect and town planner Saverio Muratori (1910-1973) was
working on quite a different project. In the year of the competition, 1959, Muratori
published his Studi per una storia operante di Venezia, in which he demonstrated an
attitude towards history that was diametrically opposed to that of Quaroni. Whereas
Quaroni had tried to differentiate between the new and the old, stressing the difference
between the present and the past, Muratori had absorbed history by declaring that there
was an identity between historical analysis and architectural design. Muratori’s study was
the result of a painstaking analysis of the historical layers of the Venetian urban structure.
Taking morphological analysis as a point of departure, the architectural intervention did not
attempt to differentiate itself, but instead tried to connect as organically as possible with
the ancient urban structure. Confronted with the crisis of their own time, with the reality
of rapid urban growth and the planner’s difficulty in guiding this process, Muratori and
Quaroni arrived at opposing answers. Whereas Quaroni openly confronted the uncertainties as well as the challenges of a new era, Muratori rejected the subjectivism implicit in
the position of those who tried to control complex processes by way of visual form.
For Muratori, architects should not be seduced by the excitement of the new, but should
rather be humble and anonymous contributors to the historicity of the ancient city.
41 The philosophical notions ‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori’ are important in this chapter. I will therefore give a short expla-
nation of both terms. A posteriori is a term derived from Latin, meaning ‘following from, afterwards’. According to the
philosophical movement of empiricism, all knowledge is necessarily a posteriori, that is, derived from experience. In
contrast, a priori means preceding experience, as the opposite of empirical knowledge that has its basis in experience.
According to the philosophical movement of rationalism, reason disposes of innate insights and notions, that is to say,
knowledge a priori, foregoing experience.
42 Ciucci and Dal Co, Atlante dell’architettura italiana del Novecento, pp. 45-55.
129
Muratori, Quaroni and Tafuri were all born in Rome and at the end of the 1950s they
were all to meet on the grounds of the architectural faculty of the Sapienza University.
However, Tafuri’s and Quaroni’s encounter with Muratori was unpleasant and can best be
described as a conflict. Besides being an architect and town planner, Muratori was also an
intellectual with a strong interest in history and philosophy.43 As a professor of
architectural design at the Sapienza University of Rome, Muratori became the central
figure in a bitter fight between ‘passatismo’ and ‘progressismo’ – between the past and
progress – which were now seen as antagonistic categories. Between 1959 and 1961 the
situation deteriorated, reaching a dramatic climax at the end of 1960 when Muratori’s
course in architectural design became the immediate cause of the students’ strike.
In fact, at the time, Muratori gave the only course in architectural design at the university
and the professor had been giving his students such tasks as designing chapels, or little
theatres with arches and drapery.44 The students complained, saying that: ‘The courses of
Composition IV and V, besides not responding to the real social, economic, technical and
cultural problems of the country, increasingly isolate themselves in an academic and
authoritarian approach.’45 Muratori’s assignments were concerned with meta-historical,
a-temporal forms without reference to any specific historical time, let alone to modernity.
Moreover, he did not encourage any consideration of the environment, or any kind of
individual expression.46
At the beginning of the 1960s, the student protests brought about a ‘sdoppiamento’,
a duplication of his architectural design course. The architects Saul Greco, Adalberto
Libera and Ludovico Quaroni who were all explicitly innovatory, with an affirmative outlook
on modernity and who were, to a greater or lesser degree, antagonists of Muratori,
offered an alternative course in architectural design. Manfredo Tafuri, together with his
friends Vieri Quilici, Sergio Bracco and Giorgio Piccinato became some of the first assistants for this course.47 As a result of this contrast, Muratori came to symbolize the
betrayal of the Zeitgeist: he was considered an idiosyncratic author of, in a reactive sense,
Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen in an era in which this was least expected from a
43
An important source for my account of Saverio Muratori is Giorgio Pigafetta, Saverio Muratori architetto, Teoria e
progetti, Venezia, 1990.
44 As is confirmed by Pigafetta, ibid., p. 127.
45 The students said: ‘The courses of Composition IV and V, besides not responding to the real social, economic,
technical and cultural problems of the country, increasingly isolate themselves in an academic and authoritarian
approach. The particular direction given to the course by the teacher, identifying with an a prioristic and dogmatic
choice, tends to limit the active participation of students and ignores every form of democratic collaboration in the
School.’ In L’architettura, cronache e storia, 65, March 1961, pp. 17-18, now published in Pigafetta, Saverio Muratori
architetto, p. 128.
46 Ibid., p. 126.
47 See Ciucci, The Formative Years, p. 21.
48 The criticism of Muratori’s lectures even reached the national newspapers. For instance, in the Paese Sera of 16
April 1960, a reporter continued the criticism of Muratori finding an: ‘absolute identity between the didactic method
adopted by Muratori and his personal critical system that, departing from some considerations of a historical nature,
arrives at a recognition of a state of crisis in society and in contemporary culture’. See Pigafetta, ibid., Introduzione,
p. 13.
130
professor in architectural design.48 In the heated debate concerning Muratori, Tafuri’s role
was crucial. Giorgio Ciucci mentions, for example, how Tafuri, whose attitude was
provocative, created a scandal in the concluding phase of his studies when he refused to
submit his designs for Muratori’s course.49 To understand this act and the nature of
Tafuri’s difficulties with Muratori, it is necessary to gain further insight into Muratori’s
theoretical position.
Muratori was part of a long standing tradition of Italian architects with theoretical and
philosophical interests. He by no means thought that architecture was just a matter of
designing buildings. For Muratori, architecture was a practical matter and a matter of
epistemology: architecture did not only produce buildings, it was also a source of
fundamental knowledge about the world.50 The architect-intellectual, in accordance with
the Italian tradition of architectural theory, considered the built environment to be
pregnant with meaning. Architecture was not only a mirror of the social, economic and
cultural tendencies in society, it also contained a gnostic value. In order to discover this
gnostic value in the material texture of cities, it was necessary to patiently reconstruct the
city’s history. For Muratori, the study of cities entailed a careful examination of the
different layers of their built texture in the way these had been formed through time. This
was not only a physical history, but also an intellectual history, for the bricks and mortar of
a city also contained the history of the thinking of a nation.
Muratori initiated two extensive studies of cities: in 1950-55, while a professor at the
I.U.A.V. in Venice, he began the Studi per una operante storia di Venezia with his students,
analysing, in each quarter, the determining morphological and typological structures of
Venice. Also at the end of the 1950s, while a professor at the Faculty of Architecture in
Rome, he engaged his students in an extensive morphological study of Rome.51
With these studies Muratori rejected the principles of modernist town planning.
Instead of the visionary modernist town planner, who gazed fixedly towards an ideal
society that would be realized in the near future, Muratori looked backwards to study
what was already there: the layout of cities; the form and structure of their parcels and
buildings. Muratori claimed that the only way to solve the spiritual crisis of modernity was
through a rediscovery of the fundamental, classical values of life which were enclosed in
built structures. However, according to Muratori, these values could only be detected
through the specific study of a city, conceived of as the material appearance of a
collectivity caught at a specific time and place. This was the point of departure from which
he initiated his morphological studies of Venice and Rome, both of them unique cities,
studied at a specific moment in time. In each case, Muratori studied what he presumed
to be a cohesion between the form of a parcel, the houses and the quarter in a given part
of the city. This, according to Muratori, was an important key in revealing the ideal
structure of the city in question.
49 Ciucci, The Formative Years, p. 21.
50
Among others, Muratori spoke of ‘Il valore fondativo dell’architettura come proiezione concreta ed organica del
mondo spirituale dell’uomo’, Pigafetti, Saverio Muratori architetto, p. 65.
51 Ibid., p. 135.
131
Saverio Muratori, Studi per una operante storia urbana di Venezia, 1950-1955, Quartiere di San Marina
In his morphological analysis, Muratori used two instruments. Firstly, besides a precise
historical reconstruction of the houses in a given quarter of the city, historical maps were
of great importance to him. For Muratori, these maps not only contained geographical or
historical information, but in an almost mystical way, the maps also enabled an intuitive
perception of the cultural individuality of a city. For example, in Venice he reconstructed
the form and structure of its quartieri and sestieri during the Gothic, Renaissance and
Baroque period: decisive moments in the history of the city, Muratori argued, each of
which contributed to the ideal form enclosed in the buildings of the city.52 Secondly, with
his theory, Muratori took a stand against the fragmentation and the loss of unity of
modern times. It is also from this perspective that the study of cities was so
important for him. The historical city was the summa of unity, a spiritual unity, or an
expression of a collective consciousness, which became manifest at the level of material
reality. The challenge of modernity was for people to regain the ability to perceive this
essence, according to Muratori. It was all a matter of ‘la lettura del reale’ – a correct
reading of reality – leading the architect to recognize the ‘truth’ hidden in the urban
texture.53
In an article written for Casabella Continuità, Tafuri had also insisted on the ‘reading’ of
the phenomena of reality. (See note 32) However, Tafuri’s conception of reality was quite
different from Muratori’s. Together with Giorgio Piccinato, Tafuri wrote an article in which
he attacked the intellectual assumptions behind Muratori’s thinking on history.54 Tafuri and
Piccinato claimed that the idealist and systematic nature of Muratori’s thinking had led
him to transform a positivist concept into an a priori notion.55 Due to a longing for
synthesis and wholeness, Muratori was found to have turned the notion of the organism
into a meta-historical, absolute form. For Muratori the organic form of a chapel, for
example, was the reflection of a meta-historical archetype – and these archetypes should
dictate each concrete architectural form in the present.56 Thereby the positivist notion of
organic form is falsely given a transcendent interpretation. As a consequence, Tafuri and
52 See
Elwin Koster, Stadsmorfologie, een proeve van vormgericht onderzoek ten behoeve van stedenbouwhistorisch
onderzoek, doctoral thesis, Groningen, 2001, pp. 50-62.
53 In his studies of cities such as Rome and Venice, Muratori delineated a so-called ‘tipo edilizio come sintesi a priori’:
a quintessential unity that was of meta-historical nature. For Muratori, this housing type as an ‘a priori synthesis’, was
always present in the spontaneous consciousness of the designer. It was not an outcome of an individual choice: willingly or unwillingly, the architect is guided by this principle. However, with the onset of modernity, a natural intuition
of this fundamental unity that connects the action of the single architect to the pre-existing structure had been lost.
54 G. Piccinato and M. Tafuri, ‘Il corso di composizione architettonica nella facoltà di architettura di Roma’, Architettura
Cantiere, 24, 1960, quoted in Pigafetta, Saverio Muratori architetto, pp. 129-130.
55 For Muratori, the architect was essentially a holistic intellectual: he or she aimed at the construction of an allinclusive conceptual system. For Muratori, there was thus only a graduated difference between theory and practice,
or past and present, as they were stages in one and the same system. Muratori was inspired by Croce, but even
more, his thinking fitted into the neo-Hegelian tradition. For the intellectual background of Muratori see Pigafetta,
Saverio Muratori architetto, Chapter Five: ‘Verum et factum convertuntur’, pp. 81-97.
56 ‘Uno dei caposaldi della posizione muratoriale è il concetto di organismo. Il termine, al solito, è molto equivoco,
ma il significato che gli dà il Muratori . . . lo definisce in realtà come un a-priori.’ Piccinato and Tafuri, Il corso di
composizione, p. 24, in Pigafetta, Saverio Muratori architetto, pp. 129-130.
133
Piccinato argued, an architectonic-intellectual system is created that collapses in on itself
– the truth of Muratori’s speculative system can only be derived from its own premisses.
Muratori’s thinking about history was clearly different from that of Tafuri and Piccinato.
What bothered them most was that, according to their interpretation, the perfection of
Muratori’s system left no space for the obstinate independence of the historical process.
For Tafuri and Piccinato, modern architectural form consists of a complex knot of contradictions and complexities, something which they found that Muratori’s systematical
thinking could only neglect.57 As Giorgio Pigafetta demonstrates, it is ultimately the
collision between two different ways of thinking about history and about the present that
takes place here. Tafuri reproached Muratori because, within the latter’s history, the
instantaneous event was ignored in favour of a ‘non-evenemenzialità’.58 When Muratori
looked at history, he saw the cyclical permanence of structures that are ontologically
unalterable, whereas Tafuri saw a maelstrom of continuous, abrupt, and irreversible
change. While for Muratori, ‘reality’ meant the ability to recognize the ‘truth’ in built
structures, Tafuri spoke of the necessity of abandoning belief in the perfection of the
system, in order to become open to the difficult reality of Realpolitik.
A COURSE IN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
Tafuri did not reject the history of modern architecture, but proposed to study it in an
entirely different way. During the academic year of 1964-65, he had the opportunity to
teach a course in architectural history to the students of the Facoltà di architettura in
Rome and Palermo. These lectures were part of the Corso di Composizione
Architettonica, taught by the Roman architect Ludovico Quaroni mentioned above. Tafuri
presented his course under the title ’La Storia dell’architettura moderna alla luce dei
problemi attuali’ (The History of Modern Architecture in the Light of Present Problems).59
This was the first chance Tafuri had to develop his own, extended account of the history
of modern architecture.
For the students used to the lectures of Bruno Zevi or Leonardo Benevolo Tafuri’s
account of the history of modern architecture was something radically different. Instead
57 For example, the earlier mentioned chapel was such an a priori, meta-historical form. Instead of seeing the chapel
as the embodiment of universal values, Tafuri might have wanted to write the history of an architect who failed in
the construction of a chapel, or an architect who rebelled with respect to the traditions of this building type. Ibid., p.
130.
58 Ibid., p. 131.
59 As mentioned in Chapter 2, Quaroni handed the historical part of the course over to Tafuri. I have based this
paragraph upon a typescript which is, to my knowledge, not present in the architectural libraries, but which circulates
amongst those interested in the study of Tafuri. I thank Professor Sergio Polano in Venice for having provided me
with a copy of this document from his personal archive. See M. Tafuri, ‘La storia dell’architettura moderna alla luce
dei problemi attuali (Sommari en bibliografie critiche)’, Istituto di Studi sulla architettura – Facoltà di architettura di
Palermo, s.d.
134
of the didactic tone and the attempt to persuade the audience to adopt a point of view,
they had to listen to a historian who stressed the complexity and problems of the modern
movement. In the first lesson of this course, ‘Storicità e autocoscienza nell’architettura
contemporanea’ (Historicity and Self-awareness in Contemporary Architecture),
Tafuri discussed the current state of Italian modern architecture and provided an
explanation for the widespread feeling of crisis.60 This suggests that from the beginning
of the course Tafuri confronted his students with a meta-discourse from which the
discussion of concrete architectural objects had almost totally disappeared.
Tafuri began his course with the observation that there was a new usefulness of history
in architectural practice. Faced with the crisis of modern architecture, architects felt a
need to render their creations ‘scientifically’ verifiable, Tafuri argued, and in this way
architectural projects were subjected to ‘critical historical’ control. In his lectures,
Tafuri distinguished three existing forms of operative history. Firstly, there was the
‘metaphysical history’ of those architects who believed in the existence of pure
a-temporal forms, which in each historical period receive a different interpretation in
concrete architectural projects. Saverio Muratori was an example of such an architect.
Secondly, Tafuri saw the tendency ‘to derive from historical cycles the stimuli for present
architectural action’, always occurring, however, with ‘a conscious deformation of the
historical data themselves’.61 This was operative history as practiced by Bruno Zevi.
Finally, there were the ‘pure’ historians, who, inspired by Croce, denied history any
practical use. These historians used history as a touchstone to see if certain theories
should be granted the status of a ‘paradigm’ or model.62 Tafuri strongly criticized all three
types, seeing in all of them the attempt to force or dominate history. He argued that they
all began with the assumption that a historical condition which had been lost which needs
to be recovered. History is then subjected to violent distortions in a far-reaching
manipulation of historical ‘evidence’. Whether history is seen as a filter through which to
distil pure forms – as a wise lesson to put into practice – or as the final proof of the
validity of a theory, the result, for Tafuri, covers over the substance of history, instead of
uncovering it.63
Strong words then, at the beginning of the course. In fact the the course ‘La Storia
dell’architettura moderna alla luce dei problemi attuali,’ already contained all the elements
which Tafuri would later elaborate in Teorie e Storia dell’architettura. After his first, diag-
60
The course contained the following lessons: ‘Storicità e autocoscienza nell’architettura contemporanea’;
‘L’architettura razionalista’; ‘L’eredità attuale del razionalismo: crisi e continuità’; ‘L’architettura dell’espressionismo
(1)’; ‘L’architettura del espressionismo (2)’; ‘Il naturalismo scandinavo e l’opera di Alvar Aalto’; ‘L’architettura italiana
del dopoguerra’; ‘Louis Kahn e la crisi del pragmatismo nordamericano’; ‘Le Corbusier’; ‘Conclusioni e prospettive’.
61 ‘Tendenza a ritrovare in figure o cicli storici le premesse o gli stimoli per le azioni presenti, ma con volute
deformazioni dei dati storici stessi.’ Ibid., p. 6.
62 Among others, Tafuri mentions the theoretician Renato Bonelli in this respect. See the Chapter 2 for information
about Bonelli.
63 ‘ Ma tutti e tre sembrano, poi, sforzi tesi a recuperare, con violenza spesso, una dimensione storica perduta, il cui
senso sembra dover scaturire da forzature continue, magari affascinanti e stimolanti, avendo spesso come risultato la
coperatura piuttosto che la scoperta.’ Ibid., p.6.
135
nostic lesson, Tafuri dedicated a lecture to modern, ‘rational’ architecture and the reasons
for its downfall. Convinced of the nature of the Modern Movement as an assembly of
dissenting voices, Tafuri paid special attention to the frantic, rebellious nature of expressionist architecture. In the remainder of the course, Tafuri spoke about Alvar Aalto and
modern architecture in the Scandinavian countries; of the architecture of Louis Kahn in the
United States; and of the work of Le Corbusier – all themes which reflected his interests
at the time and which were later repeated in Teorie e Storia dell’architettura.
Earlier in this chapter I discussed Tafuri’s decision to see the Modern Movement no
longer as a unity, and to regard its history as an interaction of different and often
contradictory elements. This idea also informed his first course in modern architectural
history. Importantly, and parallel to Tafuri’s ideas about a new method for urban design,
Tafuri wanted to project different ‘scales’ into his history, as a reflection of its pluriform
nature. The first scale was that of members of the rationalist avant-garde, who, according
to Tafuri, could be called ‘radical’ or ‘constructivist’ because they constructed new social
realities on the basis of an artistic ideology. In his lecture notes Tafuri wrote that at the
origin of rationalism in architecture, there is a belief in the use of ‘the weapon of art’ as an
instrument for direct intervention in social reality. Art now descends from a
‘metaphysical’, religious horizon to earth where it becomes engaged in contingent
problems. For example, in Etienne-Louis Boullée’s design of a cenotaph for Isaac Newton
in 1785, Tafuri recognized a call for revolutionary action. The symbol, he states, is no
longer a matter of universal abstraction but an instrument for a concrete, worldly battle.64
Following the process of secularization which can be traced, for example, in the work of
seventeenth-century French architects, Tafuri introduced what was for him the key notion
of modernity: the idea of il progetto. At the heart of modern, radical architecture,
Tafuri states, is an awareness that art is no longer a matter of the contemplation of some
sacred, supersensible content. The ‘project of art’ is now solely a ‘project of existence’,
connected only to the non-metaphysical, contingent material of daily life.65
As mentioned, Tafuri’s idea of a multiplicity of voices within the Modern Movement is
most palpably expressed in his analysis of expressionist architecture. According to Tafuri,
expressionism in painting, with its concentration on neuroses and psychological
disturbances, was the antithesis of rationalist artistic movements. Also in architecture,
64 This project was designed by Boullée in 1785. Boullée used the large monumental form of the sphere. In his text,
Tafuri does not mention the example of the cenotaph for Newton – again, the object has disappeared from his texts
– however, what Tafuri probably stresses in the work of Boullée is the connection between these forms and the
political interests of this architect. As Frampton suggests, Boullée wanted to design the monuments for an omnipotent
state. See K. Frampton, Modern architecture, a critical history, London, 1980, p.15. My description of Boullée and
LeDoux is based on Donald Watkin, A History of Western Architecture, London, 1986, pp. 343-347.
65 ‘L’arte non va più contemplata, ma vissuta: il progetto è inanzitutto un progetto di esistenza e l’atto esistenziale
della funzione realizza quel progetto estendendo al fruitore medesimo il compito del progettista.’ Tafuri, La storia
dell’architettura moderna, p. 11. The notion of the ‘progetto’ was of great importance for Tafuri, including as a means
of characterizing his own work. For example, in 1980, as a preface to the book La Sfera e il Labirinto, he published
the essay ‘Il Progetto Storico’, as a clarification of his own trajectory up until then. See also Tafuri’s book Progetto e
Utopia, architettura e sviluppo capitalistico, published in 1973.
136
expressionism was the counterpart to rationalism, its negative image in a tense
coexistence within the Modern Movement. It is also at this point that Tafuri deviated from
the classical historiography of modern architecture, which had rejected expressionism for
its incompatibility with the sober and Sachliche vocabulary of the Modern Movement.
For example, Nikolaus Pevsner saw ‘the style’ of expressionism as a deviation from the
Modern Movement and, in the context of the political crisis following the end of World
War I, as a direct threat to its progress.66 As examples of expressionism in architecture,
Tafuri pointed to the work of the architect Fritz Hoeger (1877-1949), and to the interior of
the Grosses Schauspielhaus in Berlin, designed by Hans Poelzig in 1919.67 As opposed to
the experiments in rationalist town planning such as the German Siedlungen in Dammerstock (1928) and in Siemenstadt (1930), Tafuri, as early as the middle of the 1960s,
pointed to the relevance of the Karl-Marx Hof in Vienna as an example of expressionist
urban architecture.
While Pevsner saw expressionism as a style, Tafuri emphatically spoke of expressionism as an attitude assumed in a confrontation with reality. For Tafuri, ‘expressionist
architecture’ was not a well-defined style or movement, but was rather a mishmash of
different ‘experiences’ having a number of aspects in common.68
➛ . . it is an attitude of aversion with respect to reality, of the rejection of a world and
a society in a state of ruin wanting to ignore this ruin, of history, accused of continuous mystification, of nature, considered as an enemy, as the damnation of man . .69
For Tafuri, expressionism was a forceful reaction to the chaos and the lack of control
common to life in the metropolis: its neurotic, inconsistent voices were actually important
elements of modernity as it began to shape itself within the city. Precisely because it is
not a unified style or movement – because of its chaotic and neurotic response to the
66
For Nikolaus Pevsner, expressionist architecture was the enemy to be attacked, with its tendency towards chaos
and arbitrariness. In Pioneers of Modern Design, a strong normative judgment pervaded his writing about modern
painting or the applied arts. See for instance his discussion of symbolism in art and literature: ‘Symbolism may be a
strength or a weakness – an endeavour towards sanctity or an affection. Cézanne and van Gogh stand on one side,
Toorop and Khnopff on the other, the former strong, self-disciplined and exacting, the latter weak, self-indulgent, and
relaxed. So the one led into a future of fulfilment, that is the establishment of the Modern Movement of the twentieth
century, the other into the blind alley of Art Nouveau.‘ Nikolaus Pevsner, Pioneers of Modern Design, from William
Morris to Walter Gropius, London, 1936, new ed. 1986, p. 89. See also M. Maguolo, Le Storie dell’architettura moderna,
typescript, 1993-1994, p. 6.
67 My description of expressionist architecture is based on www.archpedia.com/Styles-Expressionist.html.
68 ‘Nell’affrontare il tema dell’ architettura dell’Espressionismo . . . non si intende parlare di un movimento con caratteri
e sviluppi definiti allo stesso modo delle altre avanguardie architettoniche, ma piuttosto riconoscere in una congerie di
esperienze disparate dei tratti communi rapportabili a temi tipici della cultura artistica espressionistica’, ibid., p. 23.
69 ‘esso è un atteggiamento di ripulsa della realtà, di un rifiuto di un mondo e di una società in stato di sfacelo e
che vuole ignorare lo sfacelo, di una storia, accusata di continua mistificazione, di una natura, considerata come
nemica, come dannazione dell’uomo, ma anche di un’umanità considerata costituzionalmente come marcia ed ipocrita,
di istituzioni che costringono l’individuo in schemi di comportamento assurdi o tragici. (Si pensi alla letteratura di uno
Strindberg o di un Kafka).’ Tafuri, La storia dell’architettura moderna, p. 24.
137
urban world – expressionism was, for Tafuri, the ‘opposite and complementary pole’ of
the constructivist-radical movements within the Modern Movement. What both poles
have in common, for Tafuri, is that artists and architects of either persuasion reacted to
the world around them, expressly to the political and social crisis before and after World
War I. However, expressionist architects rejected the traditional instruments of communication, Tafuri argued, stating that communication was not their goal, rather it was the
direct, energetic, forceful action of social protest. They used the subjectivity
inherent in each artistic action to cry out against the world and so to confront society with
its responsibilities. Whereas the constructivist, rational movement would suspend its
verdict and devote its energies to imagining a better world, expressionist architects would
throw themselves into a series of dynamic and violent actions, with which they would try
to denounce contemporary society.
In this way, Tafuri discusses the Modern Movement in terms of two ‘opposed,
yet complementary’ avant-gardes: a positive, constructive and a negative, destructive
movement. Already we may notice the distance Tafuri takes here with regard to historical
writing that contributes to the canon. With their chaotic, neurotic qualities, expressionist
architects represented a necessary counterbalance to the cool-headed decisiveness of
the radical constructivists. Modern architecture is not only the victory of a new sort of
architecture, but also means the anguish of a much more pessimistic group of
architects.
Finally, the course ‘La Storia dell’architettura moderna alla luce dei problemi attuali’ also
contains Tafuri’s theory of the rise and fall of the modern in architecture:
➛ At the origin of the Modern Movement, the objectives of architecture, of design,
of painting and sculpture, of ballet and photography, coincide: art is not only the
condition of a civil process that is integral and integrating, but also the incentive and
the protagonist of that process.70
This is an important point in his course. With the unfolding of this more fundamental view
of the crisis of modern architecture, Tafuri showed that he was not only interested in the
microanalysis of the vicissitudes of the architects within the Modern Movement.
He also demonstrated a more comprehensive view of the problems of architects in
modern society. Tafuri disposed of a meta-discourse in this way: for, since the French
revolution the essence of the radical avant-garde lay in their claim to be the producers of
a civilized identity and in this way architects secured their social necessity.71 However,
it was here that they also had their greatest failures. The bitter truth was that both art and
architecture in the twentieth century had become enmeshed in a process of decline.
70
‘Alle origine del movimento moderno gli obiettivi dell’architettura, del design, della pittura e della scultura,
del balletto, della fotografia, ecc. coincidono; l’arte non è solo condizione di in processo civile integrato en integrante,
ma anche la molla e la protagonista di quel processo.’ Ibid., p. 7.
71 Referring to French architects of the Enlightenment such as Boullée and LeDoux, Tafuri speaks of ‘civil encouragement’, ‘revolutionary rhetorics’, ‘call upon action’ to indicate a fundamental change towards profane action. In this
sense, architects become protagonists of a civilized identity. Ibid., p. 11.
138
As a result of the very meaningfulness of art as a form of protest, Tafuri found, the
avant-garde at the beginning of the twentieth century became subject to an erosion of
meaning, an increasing loss of significance. At its height, art was able to picture a different
reality; to imagine a different world. From there it became entrapped in a negative movement, which was described by Tafuri as going from ‘protest’, to ‘symptom’, to finally arriving at a pure ‘registration of events’.72 The figurative arts at least displayed a keen
awareness of this process, however, Tafuri found this not to be the case with architecture.
Even if architecture could be said to hold a paradigmatic position in relation to the present
crisis of the arts, it did not seem to be aware of this situation. It is on the basis of this
double crisis of architecture – its own critical condition and the failed awareness of this –
that Tafuri sought to explain the individual crises that haunted such architects as J.J.P.
Oud, Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson, amongst others. These were ‘ideological and
linguistic’ crises affecting these architects who were almost only intuitively aware of the
decreasing capacity of architecture to give meaning to society. Throughout the 1960s and
1970s, Tafuri developed the notion that the crisis of modern architecture was a crisis of
the social relevance of architects. As we can see, the essential elements of this discourse
were already clear to him in the early 1960s.
ARCHITECTURE AS A GUILT COMPLEX
With this course, Tafuri took the first step towards an architectural history that was no
longer based in the contents of the architectural movements themselves. He adopted a
meta-narrative in order to distance himself from the world of architects. In later
publications, such as Progetto e Utopia (1973) or L’architettura dell’Umanesimo (1969),
Tafuri places the struggles of modern architects into a broad historical perspective.73
The framework is provided not by the architectural movements themselves, but by the
rise and consolidation of the capitalist mode of production. It is this system and the
‘culture of the Metropolis’ that it created which is decisive for the fate of the modern architect. This distancing from the architectural point of view was another essential step in
the passage from operative history to historical critique.
However, Tafuri also produced very different analyses of architecture. For example,
in 1964 he published an analysis of a Baroque church complex in Rome, consisting of the
Ss. Trinità dei Spagnoli church and the accompanying convent, located at the heart of the
city centre.74 The extensive essay called, ‘Un “fuoco” urbano della Roma barocca’,
was firstly a philological document in which the design process of the church and its
accompanying edifices was carefully reconstructed. The essay adopts the method of a
philological researcher who unravels manuscripts attempting to interpret their
72 ‘Da tale partenza le cosidette arti figurative passano alla protesta, poi al sintomo, all’indizio, al pure segno, poi
ancora alla registrazione ed infine, più recentemente, ad un ritorno al costruttivismo sotto il vessillo dell’arte programmata o “neo-gestaltico”.’ Ibid., p. 8.
73 Manfredo Tafuri, L’architettura dell’Umanesimo, Bari, 1969. See also the ‘Avvertenza’ on pp. 5-7 for a further
example of this theme.
139
characteristics, a process in which the text is the central concern.
The article on the Ss. Trinità dei Spagnoli church shares this approach with the article,
‘Architettura e socialismo nel pensiero di William Morris’ published in 1963. This is a review of Architettura e Socialismo, an Italian translation of the writings of the English architect and theoretician William Morris (1834-96), edited by the architectural historian Mario
Manieri Elia.75 Tafuri placed Morris’ theories within the context of the struggle of an élitist
intelligentsia to come to terms with the radical changes induced by the industrial
revolution. He found that Morris was an engaged intellectual who had the pretension to
design for the benefit of the lower classes, but was unable to free himself from the almost instinctive resistance of the upper class towards the emancipation of the workers.76
As a result, his feverish designs of wallpaper, for example, should be understood as
expressions of an underlying guilt complex. While Morris made a plea for an art ‘by the
people and for the people’, at the same time he demonstrated the impossibility of art
transcending its own particular domain and actually contributing to the emancipation of
the workers.77
At the beginning of his article about Morris, Tafuri states that historiographic studies on
the Modern Movement should necessarily be accompanied by ‘a preliminary work of
systematic re-exploration of that rich and fundamental material that constitutes the
theoretical foundation of the Modern Movement.’78 However, whereas in the case of
William Morris, Tafuri focuses on a precise unravelling of theoretical texts about
architecture, in the case of the Spagnoli church he engages in yet another project. Tafuri
now examines the building as a text, trying to reconstruct its design history through
drawings and other source material that had been conserved in archives. In his essay
about the church, Tafuri states that his analysis is based upon ‘a rich series of designs, for
a large part unpublished, conserved in the State Archive of Rome.’79 In analysing the
church and the accompanying convent, designed by the Portuguese architect Emmanuel
Rodriguez Dos Santos for the order of the Trinitari (1741-46), it was most of all ‘la qualità
del relazionarsi alla città’ – the way in which this complex related to the city – that
interested to Tafuri.80 In support of this analysis, Tafuri argues at the beginning of the
essay that the building should not be judged exclusively on the basis of its stylistic
74 Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Un “fuoco” urbano della Roma barocca’, Quaderni dell’istituto di storia dell’architettura, Facoltà di
architettura, Università di Roma, 61, 1964, pp. 1-26, quote from pp. 1-2.
Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Architettura e socialismo nel pensiero di William Morris’, review of: W. Morris, Architettura e
socialismo, ed. M. Manieri Elia, Bari, 1963, in Casabella Continuità, no. 280, October 1963, pp. 35-39.
76 The article about William Morris provides an example of how Tafuri focused on the ‘architectural ideology’ of
architects; how he treated their theories as a history of mentality. At the end of the article, Tafuri characterizes Morris
as the ‘first grand ideologist of the Modern Movement.’ Ibid., p. 38.
77 See for example: ‘il Morris colgie infatti il rapporto che lega l’arte all’ordinamento sociale, offrendo metodi di
azione per risolvere il problem di un’arte nuova, ‘del popolo per il popolo’, ma rimanendo impigliato nelle secche del
revivalismo medioevalista’. Ibid., p. 37.
78 Tafuri, ‘Architettura e socialismo’, p. 35.
79 Tafuri, Un ‘fuoco’ urbano della Roma barocca, pp. 1-2.
75
140
characteristics – as a continuation of the Baroque architecture of the seventeenth
century.81
In the year 1733 the order of the Trinitari bought a palazzo at the crossroads of Via del
Corso and Via dei Condotti: the architect Dos Santos was given the assignment of
elaborating on the existing building, while also adapting it to its new function.
While nowhere resorting to drastic alterations, Dos Santos envisaged a three building
complex, with an elliptical church in the middle, flanked by a convent organized around a
square courtyard, with the cells of the monks designed as a semi-autonomous unit. Tafuri
was interested in the unity of this building complex and the way in which it referred to the
pre-existing palazzo. In the Trinitari complex, he found continuity to be the dominant
theme in all aspects. In relation to the continuity within the various parts of the building,
continuity with respect to the older construction, and also continuity with respect to the
urban environment of the crossroads of Via del Corso and Via dei Condotti, Tafuri
interpreted this building with its rich, late Baroque church façade as a ‘dynamic ganglion’.
Its strength was that it vitalized the strong points of this location: the spatiality of an
important crossroads in the historical centre of Rome, where various directions
converged. In this sense, the building worked as a fuoco, a focal point that ‘reacted
visually’ with this specific spot, by giving its characteristics an architectonic expression.
Tafuri’s analysis could easily have resulted in an operative history, understood as
advocating the adoption of design solutions from the past. The sense of the article about
Dos Santos would then be understood in terms of the wise lesson the ancient architect
had to offer architects working in present day Rome. However, this was not Tafuri’s
intention, articles such as ‘Un “fuoco” urbano della Roma barocca’ were exercises in
architectural history for Tafuri. In this case, he was experimenting with the value of philological research for architectural history.
A BOOK ABOUT LUDOVICO QUARONI
In 1964 Tafuri published a study of an architect who had been an important figure in his
early career. The book Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’ architettura moderna in Italia
(1964) marked a turning point in Tafuri’s life. While Tafuri had never been convinced by the
operative histories of Zevi, for example, it was during the writing of this book that he
80 Tafuri writes: ‘Cio che invece è stato per lo meno insufficientemente indagato è la qualità del relazionarsi alla città
di quelle architetture e, insieme, la qualità del comporsi di tale interesse con altre sollicitazioni’, ibid., p. 1.
81 The exuberant, dynamic baroque architecture was very much present in seventeenth-century Rome. As Watkin
suggests, this is connected to the Catholic Church regaining power after the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Baroque architecture is characterized by its three-dimensional, dynamic spatial effects and its use of convex,
bulging and concave, retracted forms. In the late-Baroque Rome discussed by Tafuri, important pieces of architecture
were realized by Francesco de Sanctis (1693-1740), who designed the Spanish Steps in 1723-1728 and Nicola Scalvi
(1697-1751), who designed the Trevi Fountain in 1732-1762. See Donald Watkin, A History of Western Architecture,
pp. 240-252.
141
became aware of the need to totally abandon the idea of a history suitable for the design
needs of the architect. As demonstrated earlier in this chapter, Tafuri developed his thinking about history as an analogy to the debate among architects, but as well as this,
his choice for a non-operative architectural history should also be seen as occurring in a
strict relationship to developments within Quaroni’s life.
Ludovico Quaroni (1911-1987) was a key figure in the history of Italian modern architecture. His career reflected all its major developments: from the late 1930s, when Quaroni
worked with Saverio Muratori and Mario Ridolfi on the development of an ‘imperial
modernism’ for the fascist regime, to the post-war neo-realist Tiburtino quarter in Rome,
representative of the hopes of the reconstruction period.82 Situated on the outskirts of
Rome, the Tiburtino quarter (1947-1954) was a housing project for the lower classes.
Influenced by neo-realism in film, Quaroni honoured the ‘humanity’ and ‘purity’ of rural life
by rejecting rigorous modernism and designing instead a series of informal houses with
cast iron balconies, traditional overhanging roofs, folding wooden shutters and other
‘strapaese’ accents. However, Quaroni was a self-critical architect who did not attempt to
cover over self-doubts, and he had major doubts about the final result of the Tiburtino
quarter, making the comment, ‘Paese dei Barocchi’, in Casabella Continuità in 1957 –
a cynical play on words with ‘il paese dei Balocchi’, Toyland, in Pinocchio.
Ludovico Quaroni was an architect, critic, professor, and a political polemicist: a true
uomo universalis. As Manuel de Solà Morales remarked, many young Italian architecture
students experienced the evolution towards a truly modern architectural culture through
Quaroni.83 At the same time, Quaroni wrote essays about urban history, such as ‘Una
città eterna: quattro lezioni da ventisette secoli’.84 As well, at the start of the 1950s, Quaroni was part of a multidisciplinary team which designed a scheme to modernize the village of Matera, which then consisted of cave houses.
Tafuri adopted this degree of versatility and the high level of engagement during the first
years of his career. Participating in such groups as the Associazione Urbanisti ed Architetti (AUA) enabled him to experience the contradictions of being involved in different ‘scales’
of activities. In 1959, Tafuri participated in the competition for a national library in Rome.
Also in that year, he wrote an extensive history of the ‘Via Nazionale’, considered as
Rome’s first modern street.85 Already in the first years of his career, Tafuri was translating
the contradictions of these many-sided activities into a sense of the complexity of architectural history. However, it was while writing the book about Quaroni that Tafuri first
became aware of the need to clearly discern the difference between the poetics of the
82
See for instance the Palazzo Ricevimenti e Congressi and the Piazza Imperiale at the E42 world exhibition (1938),
where the architects are influenced by Asplund and Tessonow. See Pigafetta, Saverio Muratori architetto, on this
topic.
83 M. de Solà-Morales, ‘Quaroni, a Distant Lucidity’, Revista Urbanismo 7, 1989, p. 37.
84 This essay was published in Urbanistica, no. 27, 1959. It is republished in L. Quaroni, Immagine di Roma, Bari,
1969.
85 See Giorgio Ciucci, ‘Gli anni della formazione’, Casabella, 1995, p. 19. See also Manfredo Tafuri, ‘La prima strada di
Roma moderna: via Nazionale’, Urbanistica, no. 27, 1959, pp. 59-109.
142
architect and the distance required in the attitude of the historian. Importantly, this was
not a choice made to oppose the discourse of architects, but a matter of drawing out the
consequences for this discourse from one of its most remarkable participants.
In Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna in Italia, Tafuri turned the
most engaged, but also the most tormented of Italian architects into the representative of
an entire architectural culture.86 The book included a long introduction in which Tafuri tried
to clear the air after twenty odd years of post-war architectural vicissitudes.87 It was the
most insightful, but also the most critical analysis Tafuri had produced thus far. Throughout the 1960s, Tafuri would often include normative elements in his writing, analysing the
strengths and weaknesses of Italian architectural culture. With great emphasis, he would
point to the importance of historical study to provide the contemporary architect with a
necessary, critical perspective. In books such as L’architettura moderna in Giappone, also
published in 1964, he emphasized the need for a ‘substantial historicization’ which alone
could provide the critical awareness with which to discern between valid and non-valid
architectural endeavours.88
However, in the introduction to the book about Quaroni, something had changed. Here
Tafuri argues that the first chapter of Italian post-war architecture was closed. While,
for Tafuri, the polemical slogan ‘continuity versus crisis’ had synthesized the post-war
debate for many years, it had now lost its critical value. No longer could architectural
culture content itself with assumptions that were left unclear. Tafuri argued that if one
chooses continuity with the past, then at the very least this calls for a critical knowledge
of the history on which one bases that continuity.89 Tafuri proposed an end to the initial
optimism and ingenuousness of modern architects, and at the same time, he pointed to
the difficult position of engaged architects. It is indicative, he suggests, that those who
make clear choices on a political level will in the end only produce weak architectonic and
urban plans. The first season of post-war architecture has come to an end, Tafuri
concluded in his introduction. The problems have become more complex and the
architects are more confused; the historian should now make an even more radical choice
for the ‘critical historicization of the chapters we consider closed’.90
At the time when Tafuri decided, after years of involvement in the architectural world,
86
Manfedo Tafuri, Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna in Italia, Milano, 1964. A year earlier, in
1963, Tafuri published the introduction of the book as a separate essay: Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Ludovico Quaroni e la
cultura architettonica italiana’, Zodiac, no. 11, 1963, pp. 130-145.
87 Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Ludovico Quaroni e la cultura architettonica in Italia’ in Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna, Milano, 1964, pp. 7-20.
88 Manfredo Tafuri, L’architettura moderna in Giappone, Bologna, 1964. This book was part of a series edited by Leonardo Benevolo, called ‘L’architettura contemporanea’. Among others, Giorgio Piccinato wrote the book L’architettura
contemporanea in Francia (1965); Mario Manieri Elia wrote L’architettura del dopoguerra in USA (1968); and Vieri Quilici
wrote Architettura Sovietica contemporanea (1965).
89 Tafuri, Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna in Italia, p. 7.
90 Ibid., p. 10 and 11: ‘Dovremo allora storicizzare criticamente i capitoli che consideriamo chiusi per ottenerne il
massimo insegnamento’.
143
that a chapter was closed and that more intense historical study was necessary, Quaroni
left his chair of ‘Urbanistics’- urban studies at the University of Florence to return to
teaching architecture in Rome. He did so because he was tired of the intense political
consciousness of the students, of the leap in the number of pupils interested in urban
planning, of the way in which the subject was seen as an opportunity to express ‘words,
too many words, ideas on architecture, on society, and oh! on the politics of urbanistics’.
As Quaroni said himself: ‘that put an end to my official career in Urbanistics’.91
Something had changed in both the lives of the critic and his object of study. As Patrizia
Bonifazio argues, in Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna, the
commitment of the historian to the object of study is different, no longer following the
‘traditional’ modernist model.92 In an attempt to distance himself from the architectural
debates of his time, Tafuri for the first time reflects on which historiographical genre
would be suitable for the analysis of the most recent part of modern architectural history.
He chose to adapt the highly conventional historiographical genre of the monograph to the
demands of writing about contemporary history. This should be viewed as a provocative
act, for although there were a few exceptional cases of historians who dedicated
monographs to ‘exemplary’ modern architects, the convention was to only write these
studies after the architect had died.93 However, Tafuri had written a monograph about an
architect who was not only alive and kicking, but who also stood at the centre of the
debate, with his neo-realist houses, for example, or with his ideas for the reform of the
South. In Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna Tafuri chose to regard
the state of affairs of Italian architectural culture from the point of view of one its most
remarkable participants. The discussion of Quaroni’s body of work alternated with such
themes as ‘The Cultural Climate of the First Post-War Years and the APAO’ and a
discussion of the most significant architectural projects that occurred after the War.
Tafuri did not consider Quaroni a ‘master’ but rather as a fragment within which
‘the entire issue of Italian architecture in its most typical aspects’ was reflected. Tafuri did
not consider Quaroni a great architect, rather, he saw in him a symbol of the vicissitudes
of the Italian modern architect, and of the difficulties that an architect might have with
engagement. In its conventional form the monograph was idealist in character, focusing
exclusively on the visual aspects of architecture at the expense of a consideration of its
social context. However, Tafuri did not want to explain an architect through an examination of important buildings or texts, for instance, he wanted to situate Quaroni in the midst
of a complex assemblage of social, economic, political and cultural factors. He wanted to
characterize an architectural culture by focusing on one of its most controversial
architects.94 It was study that far exceeded the traditional disciplinary boundaries.
91 Both statements come from M. de Solà-Morales, Ludovico Quaroni, Answers At Length, p. 5.
92
Patrizia Bonifazio, ‘Tra etica e critica, ‘Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna in Italia’ di
Manfredo Tafuri (1964)’, Architettura, Spazio Scritto, Torino, 2001, pp. 123-131.
93 A significant exception to this rule is Bruno Zevi, who immediately after the War wrote a number of monographs for
the Milanese publishing house Il Balcone; in 1947 about Frank Lloyd Wright and in 1948 about Erik Gunnar Asplund.
See Bruno Zevi, Zevi su Zevi, architettura come profezia, Venezia, 1993, pp. 221-222.
144
However, even apart from these historiographic aspects, the key to Tafuri’s conversion
to non-operative history occurred on an ethical level. Tafuri introduced his protagonist in
the following way:
➛ If it is true that in the work of each great artist lives an entire epoch, a collective
morality, in the case of Quaroni, who perhaps can’t even be considered a great artist
– at least in the traditional or idealist sense of the word – the whole episode of Italian
architecture is reflected in its most typical aspects: as a profoundly human event,
therefore full of values and ambiguities that interlace in a tangle that for an external
observer appear inextricable.95
In this quote, we may recognize the complexity that Tafuri wanted to project into architectural history. He considered that architectural design was now a ‘profoundly human event
. . . full of values and ambiguities that interlace in a tangle’. For Tafuri the contradiction that
was inevitably present in these complexities became a value in itself. To have a grasp of
reality, Tafuri suggests, means having the courage to recognize the inevitable presence of
contradiction within it; seeing fully its ‘unstable character in which choices are often inescapable although bearing dramatic consequences’.96 This is the way in which the difficulties of Quaroni’s engagement should be viewed: as part of a versatility consisting of
different activities on different levels, with no guarantees of a coherence between them
and no security of a juncture without contradictions.
Whether Quaroni wrote an erudite book or gave lectures at the university, these were
all activities that could only be assessed after the fact, with no guarantee of success.
Tafuri thus spoke of the moral dimension of Quaroni’s experimentalism; of contradictions
that became values within themselves. In fact, for Tafuri, the moral significance of
Quaroni’s life as an architect was not based on the success of individual designs, but
established through the synthesis of his ‘architectural acting’ – by the way in which he
thus gave meaning to his humanity – in communication with the social structures –
with the problems and hypocrisy of modern society. An experiment can only be verified in
an a posteriori analysis which leaves no room for an easily assumed success; that in fact
can have as its only consequence a tragic way of living. As an architect, Quaroni tried to
fight against the contradictions that haunt society, but all along he was aware that these
contradictions were already living within him. Yet, for Tafuri, at the same time, Quaroni’s
attitude remained positive and participatory, demonstrating a willingness to relive and
reshape these contradictions from day to day.
94 See, for example: ‘If the continuous failures . . . of those years can be attributed in large part to an initial lack of
perspective on the part of Italian architects . . . this lack has certainly consisted in having continued to consider the
problems from visual points of view that did not take account of . . . the political and democratic forces . . . nor the
development of international culture and of a social reality that was subject worldwide to rapid transformation.’
Tafuri, Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna in Italia, p. 8.
95 Ibid., p. 11.
96 Ibid., p. 10: ‘dando alla parola ‘realtà‘ il suo significato storico, di situazione contradittoria ed instabile in cui la
scelta è inevitabile anche se, spesso, drammatica.’
145
Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’ architettura moderna provides the perfect illustration of Tafuri’s statement that each analysis necessarily contains an autobiographical
element. In fact, while telling the story of Quaroni, Tafuri tells his own story. In a world
without fixed structure, in which we can only engage in a series of insecure experiments,
history can no longer provide any a priori security for the architect. History can no longer
be a source of consolation or a touchstone for absolute truth: instead, history becomes a
‘project’ that exists alongside many other human projects. In the background of Tafuri’s
discourse about Quaroni, we may hear Sartre’s slogan ‘L’homme est condamné à être
libre’: a terrible freedom, as individuals can only fall back on themselves in choosing values and actions. In this world, Quaroni, as an architect, chooses an ‘agire come participazione’ – a morality of action and engagement – risking failure each time with the bonne foi
to honestly face the absence of any guarantee of success. For Tafuri ‘history as a project’
meant taking leave from an idealist and speculative history. Tafuri concentrated on the
many contradictory levels of architectural activity: he wanted to discern a ‘dato costante’
which, like Ariadne’s thread, connected the theoretical, political and creative activity of the
architect. However, a conditio sine qua non for all this was to face history in its true dimension, without any ‘false’ idealist schemes; without a flight into utopia. The contradictory
forces of history, Tafuri argued, are not be regarded as ‘impurities’ to be cleansed away by
idealist abstraction. It is precisely in the contradiction that the force of history resides,
as a positive power from which perhaps a certain hope for the future can be derived.
146
147
CHAPTER 5
TOWARDS A NEW ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
When Tafuri arrived in Venice in 1968, he did not find a ‘serene city’.1 An occupation of
university buildings and protests in the streets of Venice by students, joined by workers
from the chemical factories in Marghera, were signs that the daily scholastic routine had
been suspended. In Italy, the Movimento Studentesco had started well before 1968,
being already active at the end of the 1950s, and from this time until late in the 1970s the
universities were central to the fight for social change. In Venice it was certainly a phenomenon to be taken seriously, as in the years preceding 1968 the students’ movement
had left a profound mark.
In 1968 the situation was such that the authorities had lost control over the events taking place; this was the case within educational institutes such as the I.U.A.V. or the
Accademia delle Belle Arti, as well as within important cultural institutions such as the
Biennale. This created an atmosphere of hope: students wondered whether it was the
first sign of the dawning of a new era after the difficult years of post-war reconstruction
and the impasse that the Italian Communist Party had arrived at due to the endless
compromises made under Togliatti’s leadership. The student movement seemed a
powerful demonstration of the capacity of the so-called ‘New Left’ to intervene and take
control of social institutions after years of the marginalization of the left wing in Italy.
Perhaps the long awaited revolution would finally come about.
In Venice the students’ protests became even more dramatic as a result of an initiative
by the art students of the Accademia delle Belle Arti which involved occupying the
grounds of the Biennale. The role played by the art trade and the fraudulent attitude of the
committees created to select the artists led to the accusation that the Biennale was part
of the discreditable system of the capitalist establishment. Daniel Cohn-Bendit arrived to
support the boycott of the Biennale, now perceived as an ‘expensive plaything destined
for the pleasures of the dominant class’.2 From 12 June onwards, the newspapers of
Venice reported almost obsessively on the threat of a possible occupation by a group of
rebellious students and intellectuals. On 18 June, the police reacted drastically to stop the
growing tension by intervening in a protest at the Piazza San Marco, with the main result
being that numerous tourists were badly mistreated. However, the opening of the
Biennale was ensured, as the police were now guarding its grounds.
1 I refer to the epithet naming Venice ‘La Serenissima’ meaning the noblest, most illustrious. This name was given
to the Republic of Venice, as it had existed for more than a millennium. Venice lost its independence as a city-state
in 1759, when it was conquered by the armies of Napoleon. In this context, I refer to ‘La Serenissima’ to stress its
serene and tranquil character.
2 Pascale Budillon Puma, La Biennale di Venezia, dalla guerra alla crisi 1948-1968, Bari, 1995, p. 171: ‘costoso gingillo
destinato ai piaceri della classe dominante’.
149
a picture postcard for tourists: Marxism in Venice
The protests surrounding the 34th Biennale of 1968 are indicative of the chaotic but also
incredibly dynamic climate of these years. Foreign art journals report a kind of poster war
going on in the city. The Committee for the Boycott of the Biennale spread posters with
messages such as ‘The Biennale is Capitalist’ and ‘No to the Biennale of the Bosses’.
The Committee of Students, Workers and Revolutionary Intellectuals for the Boycott of
the Biennale was even more outspoken, seeing the boycott as an important phase in the
struggle against the capitalist system. The immediate surroundings of the Biennale itself
were like a military stronghold, crowded with police and soldiers. In the residential area of
the Giardini a member of the carabinieri, rifle at the ready, stood guard at every corner.
In response to this situation, the Argentinian painter Uriburu threw thirty kilos of green
dye into the Canal Grande as a homage to Venice and its Biennale. The water remained
intensely green all day.3
TAFURI IN VENICE
Until 1966, Tafuri’s prospects for an academic career looked quite bleak. Although he was
already a very productive historian writing on architectural themes from the Renaissance
to the present, his outspoken left-wing position made it impossible for him to rise above
the rank of teaching assistant. However, in 1966 his name was put on the list of possible
candidates for the chair in the history of architecture at the I.U.A.V. in Venice. The head of
the committee was Bruno Zevi, who at that time, prior to the publication of Teorie e Storia
dell’architettura, still had a favourable opinion of Tafuri, not least because Zevi was engaged in the fight to prevent professors with a fascist past from being appointed to important positions.
Tafuri’s name had been suggested for positions in Rome and Milan, but it was no coincidence that he was finally accepted in Venice.4 The director of the I.U.A.V., Giuseppe
Samonà, had made the university a safe haven for ‘heretical’ intellectuals – those who had
difficulty finding employment elsewhere – and among the illustrious architects who taught
in Venice were Carlo Scarpa, Luigi Piccinato and Franco Albini. At a time when there was
an outspoken political-cultural climate inside the institute, and while outside, the campi of
Venice became platforms for debate, Tafuri faced the most important challenge of his
career. In Venice, he began the ambitious project of rewriting the subject matter of architectural history, as well as working on its institutionalization. A school had to be founded
3 See R.M. Dippel, ‘Venetië 1968: de 34ste Biennale en de politionele actie’, Museumjournaal, no. 4, 1968,
pp. 191-197.
4 Despite the resentment of architectural faculties, Tafuri was a kind of protégé of important participants within
architectural culture: Rogers, for instance, and Quaroni. In the interview with Passerini, Tafuri recalls the opportunity
of a teaching position in Milan: ‘At that point, that crazy Rogers, poverino, called me from Milan, saying: ‘Look, we
have a position in art history here.’ I was nobody; well, I was just a teaching assistant. He said: ‘I’ll give you one and a
half years to prepare.’ ‘How do I prepare myself?’ I asked. ‘Should I write about important things?’ He replied: ‘Well,
look. I’ll try to get on the committee, but you absolutely must win; you are the new voice!’, Passerini, History as a
Project, p. 33.
151
dedicated solely to the study of the history of architecture. Tafuri’s aim was to create a
proper institute for the history of architecture within the Istituto Universitario d’Architettura
di Venezia.
‘1968’ AND THE STUDENTS OF ARCHITECTURE
Trento: Istituto Universitario di Scienze Sociali; Torino: Facoltà di Architettura del Politecnico; Milano: Facoltà di Architettura del Politecnico; Venezia: I.U.A.V.; Torino: Facoltà di
Lettere, Legge, Magistero; Firenze: Facoltà di Lettere, Magistero; Firenze: Facoltà di
Architettura.5 This is a list of the ‘sedi’, the universities that participated in the students’
movement. Notably, there is strong participation by faculties of architecture, while in
Venice the I.U.A.V. was also one of the occupied ‘sedi’.
In Italy, the student movement started earlier than in any other European country – well
before the famous month of May in France. The situation at the I.U.A.V. in Venice may be
seen as representative of the way in which the student movement in Italy originated.
When on 19 April 1967, the buildings of the Venetian architectural institute were occupied
by students for the first time, the immediate cause was a rise in the level of tuition;
however, this was only used as a pretext for the students to demonstrate. In fact, it is
characteristic of the Italian student movement that protests against the poor state of the
university were only the point of departure for a more far-reaching criticism which was
aimed at capitalist society at large. This criticism arose from a feeling of disappointment
concerning the results of the first centre-left government. People had great expectations
when the first left-wing government was installed at the end of the 1950s. These expectations turned into disillusionment when it became clear that this government was equally
unable to respond adequately to the shockwaves created by the rapid transformation of
Italy. The conviction arose that at a fundamental level modernization in Italy had failed, or
at least had proved itself to be a process that was extremely difficult to realize.6
Architecture faculties were strongly politicized during the 1960s because of their keen
interest in the centre-left government, for whom planning and building programmes were
essential means of modernization.7 At the Polytechnic University of Milan, for instance,
there were study groups that analysed the political functions of architecture. In Milan and
elsewhere, the plea for coherent programmes of study, or the integration of research and
teaching, went hand in hand with the denunciation of existing planning politics. It is clear
that the clash between a conservative and static university system and an extremely
dynamic urban reality was particularly severe for architecture students.
5 Documenti della rivolta universitaria, a cura del movimento studentesco, Bari, 1968.
6 After a series of weak and inadequate centre-right governments, Fanfani declared in 1957 that the time had come
for an ‘aprire a sinistra’, an opening towards the Left. Although it would take a couple of years before this government
was actually realized, it opened a hopeful scenario of a more explicit social programme, moderate reforms and public
interventions in the economy of the country.
7 Robert Lumley, States of Emergency, Cultures of Revolt in Italy from 1968 to 1978, London, 1990, p. 64.
152
Traditionally, the Italian education system is idealist in character, with a sharp division
between a humanist education and technical training.8 The universities were training
centres for a minority destined to work in the liberal professions, therefore, they mainly
taught subjects such as history, the classics, and literature. New disciplines such as
economics and sociology did not appear on the curriculum and the sciences were also not
very popular. However, at the same time, both modernization and the impact of the
aggressive forces of capitalism had their effects in urban centres. Cities became the
battlegrounds of conflicting forces, for example between factory workers and
management; the youth and the older generations; and students and professors.
While they were not prepared for it through their training, architects were required to
intervene in this conflict ridden urban reality.9
We have seen that the I.U.A.V. appears in the list of universities that participated in the
students’ movement. A source of information concerning the demands of the Venetian
students is the pamphlet Documenti della rivolta universitaria which contains a summary
of the demands of the students at the different universities.10 Concerning Venice, Marco
de Michelis writes:
➛ The occupation of the faculty is the method of radical protest chosen by the
students of architecture in Venice, to denounce not only the internal situation at their
faculty, but also and once again the general structure of the university in Italy,
with its undeniable authoritarian character and oppressive nature with respect to the
constitutional rights of liberal access to study of all the civilians, and with respect to
the liberal expression and decisional power of the students in their work.11
8 Lumley, States of Emergency, p. 52. Lumley also states that this sharp division was useful to society: on the one hand,
there was a need for cheap, unskilled labour and on the other, society asked for a small minority of educated people,
preferably in the humanities.
9 In the Einaudi series La Crisi Italiana Sidney Tarrow states that the reason for this continuing crisis is a coming
together of two processes: rapid urbanization and secularization. In Italy the process of industrial development and
quick commercial expansion coincided with a process of civil modernization that could not keep up with the pace of
industrialization. This caused a lack of balance between a quickly evolving industrialization and a bourgeoisie that
lacked the force to accompany these processes with an introduction of liberal values. During the 1960s, Italian society
was caught up in an equally rapid process of secularization: a going together of industrial and cultural modernization
where this last element assumed the form of a mass culture with a specific uprooting and transgressive character.
This situation is unique for Italy. For instance, in England and France the two processes of industrial modernization and
secularization occurred in different historical periods. Luigi Graziano, Sidney Tarrow (eds.), La Crisi Italiana, Volume
primo: Formazione del regime repubblicano e societa civile, Torino, 1979, Sidney Tarrow, ‘Aspetti della crisi italiana:
note introduttive’, pp. 3-30. See also Section 2, ‘La crisi nella societa civile’, pp. 11-26.
10 Documenti della rivolta universitario, ‘Venezia, Istituto Universitario di Architettura, a cura di Marco De Michelis’,
pp. 167-218.
11 Michelis, Venezia, p. 171: ‘L’occupazione della facolta e il metodo di lotta radicale scelto dagli studenti di
Architettura di Venezia per constestare non solo la situazione interna della loro facolta, ma bensi e ancora una volta
la struttura generale dell’ universita in Italia, di inequivocabile impostazione autoritaria, oppressiva, percio dei diritti
costituzionali di liberta di accesso agli studi di tutti i cittadini e della libera espressione e potere decisionale nel loro
lavoro di studenti.’
153
In fact, as Ginzborg suggests, the essence of the Italian students’ movement, as
expressed in this quote, was the refusal to become subordinated to any form of
authority.12 In addition, it was a principal objective of the Venetian students to create
space for free intellectual activity which was not conditioned by capitalist society or by the
oppressive mechanisms of a modern ‘factory of knowledge’.13 The occupied university
was considered to be a laboratory for producing new didactic forms with far-reaching
implications at both a personal and a political level – consider, for example,
the relationship between teacher and student, or that between theory and practice.14
For the students of the ’68 movement, the university was a fortress-like institution
governed by barriers and divisions; such as those between the university and the outside
world, or between different ‘classes’ within the university. A crucial point was the rejection of rigid, hierarchical forms of education in favour of an education that was fluid, flexible and without rigid divisions, for example, between one type of faculty and another.
It was thought that flexible forms of education should be instituted, which were adaptable
to different circumstances and demands, including the personal demands of the student.15
Radical new forms of learning were now proposed: equal, non-authoritarian, open to
critical questioning. Written exams would be replaced by oral exams to break the
traditional dominance of the written word, which was seen as another form of the
exercise of authority. Seminars were proposed as a valid didactic form, considered to
provide a momentary halt in a continuous process of research and the acquisition of
knowledge. Poter sperimentare was the demand coming from the students at the I.U.A.V.
It involved having the possibility to experiment without any sort of pre-existing
conditions:
➛. . . an adequate experimentation should be possible and an elasticity that permits
and provokes the development of the diverse perspectives of science and the new
social demands.16
12 Paul Ginsborg, Storia d’Italia dal dopoguerra ad oggi ,società e politica, 1943-1988, p. 412: ‘Il fulcro del movimento
studentesco era costituito da un irrverente anti-autoritarismo. Nessuna gerarchia o centro di potere ,men che meno
le università e le forze dell’ordine, si salvavano dall’essere messi in ridicolo.’
13 Michelis, Venezia, p. 172: ‘L’esigenza di non subordinare lo sviluppo dell’universita alle necessita e alla logica del
potere politico e dello sviluppo del sistema produttivo, viene in concreto non rispettata’.
14 Antonio Negri defines the essence of the ’68 movement as the bringing about of a new cohesion between thinking
and acting and so ultimately a new way of giving form to life: ‘the intellectual is no longer a person that can be
divorced from life, from passions.’ The result was that in the classroom, professors were now questioned with respect
to their personal performance: the personality of the teacher could no longer be divorced from the content that was
being taught. See Antonio Negri, Terugkeer, een biopolitiek ABC, Amsterdam, 2002, p. 28.
15 Under the directorship of Carlo Aymonino in 1976, the I.U.A.V. didactical structure was effectively reformed.
The institutes were now considered to be too closed, while the faculties were too large to permit real contact between
disciplines. The professors connected to the Partito Communista Italiana in particular proposed a university organized
into departments. The Institute for the History of Architecture, founded by Zevi in 1960, was now replaced by the
Department for Critical and Historical Analysis. See Jean-Louis Cohen, ‘La coupure entre architectes et intellectuels,
ou les enseignments de l’italophilie’, In extenso, recherches à l’ Ecole d’Architecture Paris-Villemin, no. 1, 1984, p. 196.
16 Michelis, Venezia, p. 175: ‘una adeguata sperimentazione dovrebbe essere possibile nonche una elasticita che
permetta di seguire e provocare lo sviluppo dei diversi rami della scienza e dei nuovi bisogni sociali.’
154
The creation of spaces for ‘free’ intellectual activity also meant the right to discard the
pre-existing corpus of theory – to refuse a patrimony of intellectual traditions and
conventions. Partire da se, the students demanded: to start from oneself; to refuse ‘blind
obedience’ to any person, any existing body of work, or any series of traditions or
conventions. In this way, in Venice, the contracorsi – literally ‘countercourses’, meaning
an alternative, countercultural series of lectures - were one of the most concrete forms
that the plea for autonomy would assume. Importantly, the refusal of authority also meant
the right to refuse the past. It is in the light of this refusal that the Venetian students
proposed an alternative course in modern architectural history.
➛ Re-elaboration and analysis of some moments in history, which are particularly
important and meaningful in the development, in general, of the various disciplines
of culture, especially, of modern architecture.17
The existing histories of modern architecture were denounced for two reasons.
Firstly, the Venetian students claimed that a formal analysis based on styles – simply on
the visible – had too many shortcomings. Furthermore, the students also denounced the
existing social histories of art, for example, that of Arnold Hauser.18 The students argued
that, according to this exhaustive historiographic model, the only way to consider the
relationship between artistic work and socio-economic structures is historicist in
character. In such a historicist account architectural history becomes the outcome of a
simple formula: change in the substructure equals change in the superstructure.
In other words, changes in the economic and social situation of a country cause crises in
the development of the arts, yet at the same time, these crises can only be relative,
as the arts possess an essential autonomy – their own ability to produce knowledge independently of the tribulations of society. According to the Venetian students this historicist paradigm must be replaced by a history that perceives the notion of crisis
differently:
17 Ibid., pp. 208-209: ‘Rielaborazione ed analisi di alcuni momenti storici particolarmente pregnanti e ricchi di signifi-
cati nello sviluppo, in generale, delle varie discipline della cultura, ed in particolare dell’archittura moderna.’
18 In the pamphlet, the students do not mention the lectures of either Bruno Zevi or Leonardo Benevolo. Zevi, who had
been a professor in architectural history in Venice since 1948, had combined the introduction of modern architecture
as a topic for historical study with a moral engagement and thus produced the stereotype of what Tafuri called
‘operative history’. For example, in his autobiography Zevi su Zevi, Zevi proudly shows photographs of himself and
Frank Lloyd Wright visiting the Palazzo Ducale in Venice; Wright came to Venice at his invitation. Leonardo Benevolo,
who was the professor in architectural history when the students wrote their pamphlet, combined a classical Marxist
outlook with support for the Modern Movement. What may be postulated is that in the eyes of the students, Zevi’s
moral concern might have been too bourgeois, while Benevolo’s view might haven been seen as deterministic. Bruno
Zevi, Zevi su Zevi, architettura come profezia, Venezia, 1993, p. 65.
19 Michelis, Venezia, p. 209: ‘Nemmeno lontanamente si accenna ad uscire dal circolo vizioso della perenne attestazione del ‘valore’ di quelle manifestazioni, per studiare, secondo una precisa prospettiva storico-teorica, se, ad un
certo grado dello sviluppo capitalistico, non si giunga alla loro reale e radicale ‘crisi’ – o meglio al loro reale e radicale
rivelarsi come funzioni interne della società capitalistica stessa e delle sue necessità.’
155
➛ Not even from a distance do they [the historicist accounts, author] indicate a way
out of the vicious circle of the eternal declaration of the ‘value’ of those
manifestations, so as to study, according to a precise historical-theoretical perspective, whether, at a certain stage of capitalist development, one does not arrive at
their real and radical ‘crisis’ [of the arts, author]– or better, at their real and radical
revelation as internal functions of capitalist society and of its necessities.19
There were two points of departure for the Venetian critique of ideology. As Antonino
Saggio states, rather than regarding the superstructural realm as being inevitably
influenced by the substructure, the Venetian students proposed a history and a critical
point of view which was based in the exact opposite – a superstructure ‘desperately’
trying to insert itself in the substructure. As part of the ‘useless’ superstructure,
Modernist architects had tried to position themselves within the essential economic and
ideological aspects of the world, within its conflicts and hopes.20 It was here, with a new
way of looking at the place of the arts in capitalist society, which went beyond the naïveté
of existing interpretative models, that the history of modern architecture began for the
Venetian students. In addition, as the quote above suggests, crises actually fulfil a
function within the capitalist system. The ‘crisis’ is no longer a revolution in the classical
Marxist sense of a radical overthrow leading to a better world, but is an essential function
or stage in the development of capitalism itself.
While Venice participated in the larger student movement in Italy, at the same time it
possessed unique characteristics. As De Michelis argues in the pamphlet:
➛ The students of Venice, having observed the impossibility of essential modifications within their faculty without profound general modifications of the university and
of the faculty, have decided to take up the vicious battle for the reform of structures.
They renounce, however, political protest within the faculty that is outside of any
sort of organization: a situation which in an illusionary way puts them [the students,
author] in a different position from that subordinated one which is attributed to them
by the present organization of university power.21
The Venetian students did not submerge themselves in ‘foolish’, fanciful protests or in the
manifestation of a counter-culture. They knew that for real changes to come about, it was
necessary to become involved in the unpleasant, tiresome, and boring work of the
institution itself. This awareness was unique to the Venetian students – at least this is
how it appears in the document. To arrive at real changes they decided it was necessary
to become involved and to participate in the existing power structures of the university.
20 Antonino Saggio, ‘Il pendolo di Tafuri’, originally published as: ‘Il Progetto Storico di Manfredo Tafuri’, Domus, 773,
July-August 1995, now at: http://www.citicord.uniroma1.it.
Michelis, Venezia, p. 171: ‘Gli studenti di Venezia, constatata l’impossibilità di modificazioni essenziali all’interno
della loro facoltà senza profonde modifiche generali dell’università e della facoltà, decisa la battaglia rivendicativa er
la riforma delle strutture, rinunciano però all’azione politica contestativa in facoltà, al di fuori di qualsiasi organo che
illusoriamente li ponga in una posizione diversa da quella, subordinata, che attribuisce loro la vigente organizzazione
del potere universitario.’
21
156
It is here perhaps that we can hear the first echoes of a group of young Venetian
intellectuals, who would make themselves heard clearly during the coming years.
Massimo Cacciari, the young philosopher from Venice, Marco and Cesare de Michelis,
and others, took a more critical and distanced position with respect to the 1968
movement, yet at the same time were perhaps even more involved in the fate of
students, workers, and society at large.
REVOLUTION WITHOUT A CONTENT
➛ Let us respect the lectures; let us respect the proper timetable and the exams.
We will try to be, at the same time, revolutionary and institutional.22
Revolutionary and institutional – as a former student of Tafuri recalls this was the way in
which Tafuri began his teaching in Venice. Tafuri non andava in piazza – the comment
suggests that Tafuri did not join the students in their protests in the streets and squares
of Venice. While the students organized themselves in assemblea, discussing such issues
as direct democracy and Cuba, Tafuri and a small group of collaborators had their own
ideas about effective social protest. For Tafuri the question was whether the revolution
extramuros by the students in the streets of Venice should be followed by a revolution
intramuros within the history department of the I.U.A.V.
Tafuri began his professorship in Venice with an extensive didactical programme
dedicated to the history of modern architecture, one that involved putting together a combination of research and teaching as well as requiring the active involvement of students
and assistants. In a course given during the academic year of 1976-77, together with his
assistant Alessandro Fonti, Tafuri analysed ‘The Dissolution of the Classic as “Universal
Order”’ and ‘Piranesi: Architecture as “Negative Utopia”’. Tafuri spoke of Le Corbusier,
but also of Nietzsche, and of Nietzsche in combination with Simmel, as well as speaking
of the Marquis de Sade and the ‘repudiated eros’.23 He did not consider that architectural
history was about architects triumphantly marching at the forefront of modernity, nor did
22
See Professor Alessandro Fonti, interview held by author, 24 May 2002, recorded by written notes during the
interview.
23 I thank Luca Scappin for having assembled Tafuri’s university lectures. Together with Professor Alessandro Fonti,
both from the I.U.A.V. in Venice, he has been involved in the construction of a so-called ‘Archivio sonoro di Manfredo
Tafuri’: an attempt to collect Tafuri’s different lectures, taken down by his students, and make them available to
be heard by transferring them onto audio CD. See ‘Progetto di ricerca, di riordino e di inventariazione analitica del
fondo Manfredo Tafuri’ typescript Luca Scappin, Venice, 2001. Quoted are some of the lessons of the ‘corso di storia dell’architettura 2A, 1976-1977’ dedicated to ‘Avanguardia e architettura: le avventure del linguaggio nell’arte
contemporanea’.[Avant-garde and architecture: the adventures of language in contemporary art] Tafuri gave
the course together with his assistant Alessandro Fonti. The first lesson of the course, dated 25 November 1976,
was dedicated to ‘(Problemi di metodologia storiografica)Il dissolversi del classico come “ordo universale”.’
Other lessons were: ‘L’eros negato: Il marchese De Sade’ and ‘Intelletuali e Metropoli’ , ‘F. Nietzsche’,
(given 3 February 1977 during the morning) and ‘Da Nietzsche a Simmel’ (given the same day during the afternoon).
157
he consider that the historian was part of a cultural vanguard – the historian did not show
the people the way. From this perspective Tafuri wanted to rewrite architectural history,
providing the discipline with new content.
As a result of the interaction with the students in Venice, Tafuri added a foreword to the
second edition of Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, in which he made his point totally
clear:
➛ I re-emphasize this conceptual element in order to avoid misunderstanding: I am
speaking of Architecture, of all architecture, as an institution. With the following
consequence (carefully ignored by the sugary official ‘Marxism’: – from Fisher to
Goldmann and Della Volpe, by the Marcusian school – from Mitscherlich to his
followers, by the ‘vulgar’ sociologism of Hauser, and by the recent groping in the
dark of America’s ‘progressive’ architects): just as it is not possible to found a
Political Economy based on class, so one cannot ‘anticipate’ a class architecture (an
architecture ‘for a liberated society’); what is possible is the introduction of class
criticism into architecture.24
Tafuri’s scathing criticism of Marxist intellectuals – ‘the sugary official “Marxism’’’ –
reflects a tendency among Italian thinkers at the time to attack the orthodoxies of the
Communist Party and the Left.25 However, in the quote Tafuri also points out the exact
consequences of his non-avant-garde position. As an institution, architecture is fully part
of society, Tafuri claims, and society was for him a totalizing concept, in the sense that
nothing could be thought outside it. The social reality was both inevitable and all-embracing; alternatives were not possible, not even in such cases as an elaborate plan for a
future brave new world, or an ‘architecture for a liberated society’. Each form of criticism
24 Manfredo Tafuri, Theories and History of Architecture, (1968), note to the second Italian edition, 1970.
25
After the war, the political hegemony of the Christian Democrats dominated Italy. While the Communist Party
reached a membership of two million people in the 1950s, and so became the largest Communist Party in Western
Europe, it was systematically denied government participation. In the 1960s this led to a climate in which intellectuals
began to question their élite roles and the structures of political and cultural representation in general. Also in the student movement one of the dominant themes was the attack on all forms of establishment, including the parties of the
Left. Notably, the frivolous character of the movement with its exploration of irrationalism and ‘childlike’ behaviour,
was threatening for the orthodoxies of both Catholicism and Communism. According to Ginsborg, the essence of the
Italian students’ movement lay in its disruptive character. He declares that ’68 was: ‘much more than a protest against
the misery of the students’ condition, [it was] an ethical revolt, a relevant attempt to ruin the dominant values of an
epoch.’ See Alberto Asor Rosa, ‘La Cultura’, Storia d’Italia- tomo secondo: dall’Unità a oggi, Torino, 1975, p. 1592, Paul
Ginsborg, Storia d’Italia dal dopoguerra a oggi, Società e politica 1943-1988, Torino, 1989, pp. 260-275.
26 This issue should be seen in the context of the existence, in Italy, of a so-called ‘extra-parliamentary Left’. Immediately after the war, various left-wing groups started to attack the Italian Communist Party from the left. In the
1960s, when Italy experienced a period of unprecedented economic growth, these groups became more important.
They started to organize themselves around journals such as Quaderni Rossi (1961) and Quaderni Piacentini (1962):
together with the rejection of the ‘old’ left-wing structures, they wanted to formulate a renovated Marxist theory that
responded directly to the social and political reality of the country. See Encyclopedia of Contemporary Italian Culture,
pp. 205-207.
158
and each architectural history that begins with these revolutionary expectations can only
fall into disillusionment. As a consequence, the essence of Tafuri’s statement is that
architecture-as-an-institution only allows for critique, however, this critique can never
become an ingredient of ‘revolution’ or ‘emancipation’. The critic should remain within the
system, and should accept that system while all the time looking for a marginal position
from which to formulate a productive critique.
This did not mean that Tafuri had lost his sympathy for the students’ movement and for
their radical and ambitious goals. Rather, what happened is that amidst the intense events
of ’68 Tafuri started to reflect on the very notion of engagement itself. He was aware of
the fact that the Communist Party, as an alternative to the right wing, had itself become
part of the establishment. While Tafuri expressed the need not to ignore existing
structures, he made a plea for a revolution from within.26 In this way, Tafuri and his
assistants developed their own notion of militancy, which was implicitly critical of the kind
of militancy occurring on the streets of Venice. To remain within the system – this was
militancy for Tafuri in his early Venetian years.
➛ I would say that our approach was cold, indifferent. We affected this great indifference in order to discover where we could be useful. In general, the problem was
that if we carried the critique of ideology to its logical conclusion, the Democrazia
Cristiana and the Partito Communista came to be the same thing. Although a particular group might have something to propose for the contemporary moment, or a
sweeping revision of everything that has happened in the past, if it comes from the
working class, it’s more efficient, more efficacious. Therefore, one night we even
considered joining the Democrazia Cristiana. That was the furthest extent of our
Marxism. Absolute indifference.27
Tafuri’s attempt to establish an architectural historical institute within the Architectural
University Institute of Venice should also be understood as an almost cynical attempt to
use the system to gain power by localizing his militant attitude within the existing order.
Volontà di potere, a will-to-power, was Tafuri’s motivation in those years. We want to take
over the control in the university, he suggests, we want to gain power and become
recognized as being in authority. At this point, the plan to join either the Christian Democrat Party or the Communist Party was no more than Machiavellian.28 ‘Let us be, at the
same time, revolutionary and institutional’, he states. In fact Tafuri and his colleagues
were convinced that effective change could only come about within the existing
structures, such as those of the political parties, the syndicates, and the university.
27 Passerini, History as Project, pp. 41-42.
28
See here also the different character of Tafuri and his Venetian colleagues with respect to the 1968 generation,
who were reluctant to identify themselves openly with power and authority. For Tafuri, it was a matter of Realpolitik
to openly admit this struggle for power. Tafuri and his Venetian team thus avoided an important contradiction in
the attitude of the ’68 generation. As Passerini and Geppert confirm, the members of the ’68 generation were not
satisfied with professional success and academic recognition: they wanted to change the academic establishment
and to produce lasting transformations. See Luisa Passerini, Alexander C.T. Geppert, ‘Historians in Flux: The Concept,
Task and Challenge of Ego-histoire’, Historein, vol. 3, 2001, p. 14.
159
While Tafuri and his colleagues certainly shared a critical view of the doctrines of
communism, and while they were certainly motivated by an urge to revise ‘official’ communism, they were still convinced of the necessity to maintain an open dialogue with the
existing structures of the Left. They wanted to use their organizational force. A ‘revolution’ would be more efficient within the context of an existing structure, of any existing
structure.
On an intellectual level, this was the consequence of the critique of ideology engaged in
by Tafuri and his colleagues, all of whom considered the critique of ideology to be a
subversive process within the establishment. Tafuri and his colleagues wanted to rewrite
the history of modern architecture and so they attempted to seize power within the
Department of Architectural History in a revolution that remained within the institution.
They were no longer prepared to fulfil the role of an intellectual avant-garde who saw
themselves as mobilizing the people towards a better world. They proposed a revolutionin-negativo: a revolution without content. This was not an admission of weakness by their
side, as the expression of confusion about the possible shape of revolution, but instead a
deliberate choice to conceive of revolution as that which first makes analysis possible.
Not the construction of a brave new world, but the destruction of the existing one: this
was the fundamental choice made by Tafuri and his comrades.
However, Tafuri was aware of the contradiction present in this position, and it was a
contradiction that preoccupied him. Tafuri did not see himself in the role of a patronizing,
belittling intellectual, however, at the same time, his ambition to rewrite architectural history could be understood as being based in a desire to revolutionize the discipline by
overturning the present practices within architectural history. This could imply that Tafuri
still maintained an avant-garde position in the sense of setting an example for other historians to follow.
Viewed from a certain perspective, Tafuri’s rupture with respect to the preceding historiography appears almost inevitable: after a Pevsner or a Giedion – after years of ‘operative’ engagement with modern architecture – it was necessary that a complete antithesis,
in the form of Tafuri’s non-operative history, would follow. Notably, the historiographers
preceding Tafuri had followed the modernist paradigm by starting their histories specifically in the twentieth century and by declaring the previous centuries irrelevant. They
were the avant-garde historians whose starting point was a total rupture with the past.
Tafuri, however, did not see himself as a neo-avant-garde historian – he did not want to
superimpose his vision of architectural history upon that of Pevsner or Giedion. He did not
see his history as being part of a progressive trajectory in which previous stages are constantly overcome. Thus, during the 1970s Tafuri took up the challenge to overcome the
Hegelian-progressive legacy and to position the historiographical rupture in a different
way. While, for example, a book such as Progetto e Utopia, architettura e sviluppo capitalistico further deepened the rupture with previous historiographical practices, Tafuri would
not simply exchange an outmoded avant-garde position for a new one and become the
new Pevsner or Giedion of his time. It was this struggle to avoid dogmatism that would
ultimately be decisive for Tafuri’s thinking about architectural history, as well as its relationship with other disciplines, and its role in society.
160
A STRUGGLE FOR POWER
As a consequence of remaining intramuros – of being revolutionary and institutional –
immediately after his arrival Tafuri engaged in a struggle for power. However, Tafuri was
not a new intellectual who engaged in a captatio benevolentia – offering his students
promising new prospects. It was not so much a matter of gaining a voice, but rather of
claiming a voice. Tafuri and his assistants declared themselves to be the authorities to
reckon with: from now on, they would decide the shape and content of architectural history.
It is important to stress that Tafuri’s actions would have been unthinkable at any Italian
university other than the I.U.A.V.29 In contrast with the classical university, the architectural institute in Venice had an independent academic structure and functioned without
the intervention of other universities. In this context, since its foundation in 1926, the
I.U.A.V. had developed as a laboratory for the redefinition of the discipline of architecture.30 In the early 1970s, when Giuseppe Samonà retired and Carlo Aymonino became
his successor, the I.U.A.V. was dominated by a strong left-wing consensus in which the
professors and the students were to a great extent united in their left-wing, communist
political orientation. This provided an important condition for the experiments conducted
by Tafuri and his team. As Tafuri recalls in an interview, the ’68 revolt had actually started
much earlier in Venice, as the democratization of university structures was already been
accomplished there.31
In fact, even before Tafuri’s arrival, some professors had started to radically question the
traditional contents of their discipline. For example, in 1966 Professor Levi, who taught
the science of construction, started to ‘radically criticize from within the contents of a
discipline’. Instead of dealing with the traditional theories of construction, Levi discussed
what he called the ‘philosophy of security’.32 Another important initiative was taken by
Giovanni Astengo, a specialist in urban planning. Breaking with the traditional unity of architecture and urbanism as had been proclaimed by, among others, Giuseppe Samonà, in
1970 Astengo initiated a completely separate Master’s degree in ‘urbanistica’.
The enforced autonomy of the discipline of ‘urbanism’ was a consequence of the radically modified content of this field. No longer confined to the artistic and constructive
29
I have based this paragraph on the interview with Tafuri by Mercedes Daguerre and Giulio Lupo. Tafuri explained,
among other matters, the history of the architectural history department since 1968. See Mercedes Daguerre and
Giulio Lupo, ‘Entrevista con Manfredo Tafuri’, Materiales 5, PEHCH-CESCA, Buenos Aires, March 1985. Now on the internet at: http://www.bazaramericano.com/arquitectura/materiales/entrevista2_tafuri.asp.htm. See also, Architectural Design Profile – The School of Venice, L. Semerani (ed.), no. 59, 1985, especially P. Morachiello, ‘The department
of architectural history’, pp. 70-71.
30 For a short history of the I.U.A.V see their internet site at:
http://www.iuav.it/ateneo1./presentazi/storia/index.htm
See also, Storia di Venezia, tomo III, Il Novecento, Mario Isnenghi (ed.), Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiano ‘Giovanni
Trecani’ Roma, 2002, Part II: ‘Le Istituzione culturale’, Guido Zucconi, ‘L’Istituto Universitario di Architettura’.
31 See Daguerre and Lupo, Entrevista, p. 1.
32 I base this information on Tafuri’s account, ibid., p. 8.
161
imperative of architecture, urbanism developed into a scientific discipline focusing on the
management of large areas called ‘territories’ or regions.
Inspired by Astengo, Tafuri became convinced that the ‘destruction of the existing world’
meant first of all that a new institute had to be created.33 In addition, Tafuri assembled an
‘army of researchers’. Such people as Francesco Dal Co and Marco de Michelis, while
trained as architects, now devoted themselves exclusively to the history of architecture.
This marked a unique moment in the disciplinary history of architectural history: a completely different architectural history was created, no longer written by art historians, nor
by engaged architects, but by a group of architects who made the non-operative paradigm
into a personal and normative standpoint. It is here that the discipline of architectural history, conceived as an autonomous discipline with professional architectural historians,
was created.
CRITIQUE AS THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
In the first years after his arrival Tafuri faced the task of assembling a team of researchers
in order to realize his ambitions.34 Rejecting the individualist ethos that dominated
scholarly and artistic production, Tafuri established his new institute for architectural
history as a laboratory for team research: he introduced a collective research programme,
which produced books co-written by groups of researchers.35 Together with the
philosopher Massimo Cacciari, Tafuri now started to publish a series of articles which
were of fundamental importance in determining the direction of the new institute and the
nature of Tafuri’s architectural history. In Contropiano’s first 1969 issue, Cacciari published
the essay ‘Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo’, while Tafuri published ‘Per una critica
dell’ideologia architettonica’.36 The latter was given a more definitive form in the book
Progetto e Utopia, architettura e sviluppo capitalistico (1973).37 In this book, Tafuri further
defined the consequences of the rupture with operative architectural history that he had
initiated with Teorie e Storia (1968).
33
In Daguerre and Lupo’s interview, Tafuri mentions that at first he and his group of researchers did not support
Astengo’s action. Later Tafuri looked back upon Astengo’s decision with more approval: in the 1985 interview, Tafuri
appreciated Astengo’s strategy for its implied rupture with a unitary architecture ‘ad perennis’ and Astengo’s plea
for the urgency of autonomy for certain disciplines. See note 28 above. For more on Astengo’s centre for urban studies see, P. di Biagi and P. Gabellini, (eds.), Urbanisti Italiani, Piccinato, Marconi, Samonà, Quaroni, De Carlo, Astengo,
Campos Venuti, Bari, 1992.
34 Tafuri himself said the following about those first years: ‘I realized that the profession of the architectural historian
could be completely autonomous in relation to architecture because its objective was to start from the discipline and
embrace history itself. For this reason we decided to form a group of historians, to take as our starting point a deep
knowledge of the subject and its characteristics . . . to go on to develop specifically historiographical problems. I
turned to the young students who were thinking and calling everything into question. I reflected on the situation and
came to the realization that there wasn’t anyone senior to me, I had the academic power, so I could start to eliminate
the older ones. I began to recruit faculty who were almost my age, and we started a small group, including Francesco
Dal Co and Marco de Michelis’, Passerini, History as Project, p. 44.
162
All of these books and articles were the result of Tafuri’s principle task in Venice – to
create an academic institute dedicated to architectural history considered as an autonomous, and thus critical activity. Tafuri created an institute in which the research into the
history of modern architecture took central place, something that was totally unheard of
in Italy.38 In fact, transforming architectural history into a critical discipline meant that
Tafuri’s discourse became interrogatory, almost Socratic, ‘basing itself on the uncertainty
generated by radical questioning first of declining modern architecture and then of
architecture in general.’ 39 In order to activate the critical potential of the discipline a plan
had to be made, in the sense of a programme of research activities. Tafuri designed a
scientific programme that centred around the meaning of architectural ideology in different societies. With his colleagues he found the focal point to be the rise and consolidation
of the three grand ideological systems of the twentieth century: the Soviet Union,
the Weimar Republic and the United States.
The Soviet Union represented a state system in which socialism was believed to have
reached its final form as ‘realized socialism’. However, the Germany of the Weimar
Republic was also found to have been created on the basis of a belief in a ‘realized
social-democracy’, as was the case for the United States with its ‘realized capitalism’.
These were three grand ideologies, all apparently successfully put into practice in specific
societies, yet all of which were followed by disaster. Their failure according to Tafuri was
precisely that in all three political-ideological systems the project was considered to have
been completed and any further development or approach to perfection was considered
unnecessary. According to Tafuri, this was ideology in its most malicious form: ideology
that in being labelled complete is then raised to the level of being sacrosanct. Tafuri argued that, without doubt, in all three cases, it is the closure of ideology to further development that leads to a totalitarian state.
The programme of ideological critique resulted in a series of collective studies which
appeared as books such as, Socialismo, città, architettura. URSS 1917-1937; Il contributo
degli architetti europei (1971)’ or La Città Americana dalla guerra civile al New Deal
(1973).40 However, in order to understand the effect of the Venetian critique of ideology
on Tafuri’s architectural history, two elements need to be taken into consideration: firstly,
Tafuri’s participation in the journal Contropiano-Materiali Marxisti, and secondly, the specific contribution made by Massimo Cacciari, the ‘in-house’ philosopher at the architectural historical department and the theoretician of the so-called pensiero negativo.
35 Lumley, States of Emergency, p. 58.
36 M. Tafuri, ‘Per una critica dell’ideologia architettonica’, Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti, no.1, 1969, pp.31-79. M.
Cacciari, ‘Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo’, ibid., pp.131-201.
37 M. Tafuri, Progetto e Utopia, architettura e sviluppo capitalistico, Bari 1973.
38 As Jean Louis Cohen confirms, at the same time Tafuri kept on working on more ancient periods in the history of
architecture. Individually, Tafuri studied the architects Palladio, Sansovino and Borromini. On a collective level, there
was research about the Via Giulia in Rome, with Luigi Salerno and Luigi Spezzaferro, published in 1973. Modern and
ancient: these were thus the two parallel roads of research that Tafuri followed . See Jean-Louis Cohen, ‘La coupure
entre architectes et intellectuels, ou les enseignements de l’italophilie’, In extenso, 1984, p. 193.
39 P. Tournikiotis, The Historiography of Modern Architecture, Cambridge, Mass., 1999, p. 195.
163
CONTROPIANO
The journal Contropiano-Materiali Marxisti was registered by the Court of Justice in Rome
on 10 April 1968, one month before the student protests began in France. The first preparatory meetings had already been held and the ideological programme of the journal was
already defined, when news of the May revolts in Paris reached the Contropiano circles.
From that moment onwards, the dual character of the journal was decided. Its general
goal and programme, related to the critique of ideology, would be fundamental, while its
specific content would be determined by actual events.41
In the first issue of 1968, there were three leading ‘saggi’: Antonio Negri wrote on the
theme of ‘Capitalist Theory in 1929: John M. Keynes’; Mario Tronti wrote ‘Extremism and
Reformism’; and Alberto Asor Rosa wrote an essay with the title, ‘The Young Lúkacs –
Theorist of Bourgeois Art’.42 In the same issue, under the heading of ‘Materiali’,
Francesco Dal Co wrote the article, ‘Note on the Critique of the Ideology of Modern Architecture: from Weimar to Dessau’, and Massimo Cacciari wrote about ‘Dialectics and
Tradition’.43 One year later, in 1969, Tafuri published his first article in Contropiano: ‘For a
Critique of Architectonic Ideology’ – note the subtle difference between Dal Co’s ‘critique
of the ideology of modern architecture’ and Tafuri’s ‘critique of architectonic ideology’.44
The title of the journal, Contropiano, was derived from a Russian film from the 1930s
with the same title. The title was indicative of the specific tension that lay at the basis of
the journal. ‘Contropiano’ was in fact written backwards as onaiportnoC, to indicate the
subversive power of analysis – the specific project of slowly eating away at the ‘secure’
foundations of bourgeois capitalism. Where, for instance, a journal such as Quaderni Rossi focused on sociological themes, the contributors to Contropiano wanted to concentrate
on the difficult fields of culture and ideology. The goal of the members of Contropiano was
40 M. Tafuri, G. Ciucci, F. Dal Co, M. Manieri Elia, La città americana dalla guerra civile al ‘New Deal’, Bari, 1973; M. Taf-
uri (ed.), Socialismo, città, architettura, URSS 1917-1937, Il contributo degli architetti europei, Rome, 1972. Later, another
book on this theme was published: M. Tafuri, J.L. Cohen, M. de Michelis, URSS 1917-1978. La città, l’architettura/
La ville, l’architecture, Rome, 1973. See also M. Tafuri, ‘Socialdemocrazia e città nella Repubblica di Weimar’,
Contropiano, no. 2, 1971, pp. 257-311.
41 The information about the precise functioning of Contropiano derives from an interview that I undertook with one of
its editors, Alberto Asor Rosa, on Wednesday, 8 March 1995, in Rome. During February and March 1995 I held a series
of interviews with friends and colleagues of Tafuri who live in Rome: with Vieri Quilici at his architectural studio in
Rome on 1 February 1995; with Mario Manieri Elia on 15 February 1995, at the Centro Storico of the Villa Borghese;
with Giorgio Ciucci at his home in Rome on 20 February 1995; and the already mentioned interview with Asor Rosa at
his home in Rome. All interviews were recorded by way of written notes.
42 The philosopher and political activist Antonio Negri left the group of editors after the first issue appeared in
1968. This was because of an incompatibility of vision that was directly related to the student protests of ’68. Asor
Rosa describes this conflict in the following way: ‘Negri explicitly considered these [the student protests] to be the
beginnings of a pre-revolutionary process. We, on the other hand, while accepting their importance, thought that the
fortresses of bourgeois and capitalistic defence demanded a much longer and more articulated process, to be built by
means of theoretical arguments (plus of course militant organization).’ Asor Rosa, Critique of Ideology and Historical
Practice, p. 29.
165
to define a very precise and very outspoken position within the world of left-wing thinkers:
‘To deconstruct the attitude of the enemy’, and to do so by way of critical analysis, by way
of exposing falsehood. However, just who was the enemy identified by Contropiano?
The ‘enemy’ was the archetypical left-wing thinker who was convinced that the world
could be changed through the implementation of ideas. This is why the concept of ‘utopia’
was so important to the to Contropiano’s contributors: the left-wing pathos, which arose
through imagining better worlds beyond one’s own, was considered to be nothing other
than the summum of myth and illusion. It was not only a matter of rejecting such utopian
visions, or of making them culpable, but of seeing them for what they were: an intrinsic
part of capitalism itself that uses its ideological powers to maintain and reinforce its own
position. For capitalism, even the alternative views have their function.
The contributors to Contropiano rejected the idea of revolution as a radical leap from one
system to another. However, this in no way meant a plea for evolution or reform. What
they were aiming for was particularly violent in intellectual terms involving destruction,
shattering, and blowing to pieces. This was thought to be the only way of exposing the
myths and systematically undermining all existing systems of value; all security and ‘foundations’ – by means of critical analysis. However, in reality this entailed taking a deep
breath and having a lot of patience, as it was considered that it is the ‘long phase’ that is
proper to the historian. The existing order had to be undermined and fragmented, so that
its parts could be reassembled in accordance with a new order. It was thought that this
was the only true way to substantial change: it was a long term process in which the analytical and theoretical work of the historian took a primary place.
CRITIQUE OF IDEOLOGY IN VENICE
Contropiano was preceded by a journal called Angelus Novus, also filled with long, intense
pages dedicated to the analysis of literature, music, philosophy and visual arts.
Angelus Novus, Trimestrale di estetica e critica was founded in 1964 by the school friends
Massimo Cacciari and Cesare de Michelis, who were at the time still in their teens. The
authors aimed to broaden the focus created by the ‘operaïsta’ movement so that its consequences would also be drawn in the cultural field.45 Journals such as Angelus Novus
and Contropiano all started from a central assumption: the orthodoxies of the political left
wing needed to be re-examined. This re-examination was accompanied by a great seriousness in the application of a new, more effective critique of ideology. The architectural
historians working and studying in Tafuri’s department were especially interested in this
43
Contropiano, no. 1, 1968. Appearing under the heading of ‘saggi’ were: Antonio Negri, ‘La teoria capitalistica nel
’29: John M. Keynes’, pp. 3-41; Mario Tronti, ‘Estremismo e riformismo’, pp. 41-59; and Alberto Asor Rosa, ‘Il giovane
Lukács, teorico dell’arte borghese’, pp. 59-107. Appearing under the heading of ‘materiali’ were, among others: Massimo Cacciari, ‘Dialettica e tradizioni’, pp. 125-153; and Francesco Dal Co, ‘Note per la critica dell’ideologia della
architettura moderna: da Weimar a Dessau’, pp. 153-171.
44 M. Tafuri, ‘Per una critica dell’ideologia architettonica’, Contropiano, no. 1, 1969, pp. 31-79.
166
theme.46 In their operaista world view, these historians pictured a recently formed,
‘mature’ capitalism that was aggressive, dynamic and very cunning. At the same time,
this ripe capitalism was counterbalanced by the workers, who had also matured and who
had developed their own ‘consciousness’, independent of capitalism. Cacciari, Asor Rosa
and Negri saw their work for Contropiano as a scienza operaia, as a workers’ science.
They were convinced that they should position their cultural work outside the realm of the
bourgeoisie and inside that of the workers, who were the estranged, alienated group
within society. However, this all had to occur on a basis of equality with the working class,
as the idea of an avant-garde intellectual leadership would be insulting.
The Venetian critics of ideology regarded art and architecture as ideological constructions aimed at fulfilling a function in capitalist society. As stated before in this chapter,
they regarded bourgeois culture as a phenomenon whose survival was dependent on the
degree to which it was ‘useful’ to society.47 For the authors of Contropiano, cultural
phenomena were marked by a precise structure: they had a precise agenda created by
the connection between the form of a cultural object and the ideological and political
concepts of society. In order to bring this bond to light, cultural theorists had to become
analysts, as such, they could demonstrate the ‘objective function’ of a book, a film, or a
work of art. As Cacciari put it, they should reveal ‘their identity as ideological instruments
and their service to a general context of social and economic development.’48 This
analytical method was all the more necessary since culture would by definition disguise
its political function – cultural objects suggested a neutrality that was not there in reality.
Therefore, the critique of ideology was an operation of unmasking and exposure.
It is in the light of these premisses that Francesco Dal Co published a ‘heretical’ interpretation of the work of Le Corbusier in 1973.49 In the article La Cultura di Le Corbusier,
Dal Co acts as an analytical architectural historian who conceives of the task of establishing the connection between Le Corbusier, as a ‘specific cultural phenomenon’, and the
demands made upon him by a general social context. Le Corbusier is regarded as being a
45 For
example, in the first issue, Cacciari published an article called ‘Comment on Hegelian Aesthetics. 1. History of
the System.’; De Michelis published ‘The Courage to Speak about the Roses, or the Astuteness of the Dove.’ The title
of the journal referred to the failed experiment by Walter Benjamin to found a cultural journal in the 1930s. Walter
Benjamin was that other Marxist intellectual, who served as a source of inspiration for the dissident intelligentsia of
the 1960s. Parallel to the 1930s, in the 1960s there was a need for a ‘new angel’: a new epistemological project, hence
Angelus Novus, Trimestrale di estetica e critica, edited by Massimo Cacciari and Cesare de Michelis. The first issue
appeared in the autumn of 1964 and the journal continued until 1966. M. Cacciari, ‘Note di estetica hegeliana, nr. 1:
Storia del sistema’, Angelus Novus, no. 1, 1964; Cesare de Michelis ‘Il coraggio di parlar delle rose, ovvero l’astuzia
dell colombe’, Angelus Novus, no. 1, 1964. See also Mario Valente, Ideologia e potere, da ‘Il Politecnico’ a ‘Contropiano’,
1946-72, Torino, 1978.
46 In an interview held with Massimo Cacciari in 1985, he stresses the original character of the Venetian critique of
ideology: with respect to traditional Marxism, ‘culture’ and ‘ideology’ now matured into a much more conscious and
more substantial form, according to Cacciari. He also confirmed, in that same interview, that architectural historians
were mainly responsible for the elaboration of this critique. Giulio Lupo, Mercedes Daguerre, ‘Entrevista con Massimo
Cacciari’, Materiales 5, PEHCH-CESCA, Buenos Aires, March 1985. This interview can be found at:
http://www.bazaramericano.com/arquitectura/materiales/entrevista_cacciari.asp
167
on the left: the journal Angelus Novus, on the right notes made by Giuseppe Samonà about the Asor Rosa’s theory
of the avant-garde. From the Fondo Samonà, I.U.A.V., Archivio Progetti.
witness to one of the key moments in contemporary history. The significance of Le Corbusier, Dal Co stated, can only be understood in the light of the ‘historical and comprehensive’ rending and fragmentation of ‘the entire bourgeois organization of work’ as it occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century.50 This event was followed by a deep
crisis in bourgeois institutional organizations affecting the channels through which they
exerted real power. Le Corbusier was one of the rare intellectuals who understood that
the traditional notion of engagement had been exhausted and that the model of progressive intellectual engagement could no longer work. Far from being a ‘master’ of the Modern Movement, Le Corbusier did not engender a period of victorious modernism, but instead stood at the end of a long tradition.51 Dal Co claimed that his insight into this situation
made Le Corbusier a different architect, one who went beyond the limits of a ‘bourgeois
radical architecture’.
Another important premiss was the openly confessed ‘politicità’ of their point of view.
The authors of Contropiano elaborated their studies from an explicit punta di vista. They
claimed that only studies executed from the point of view of the rejection of the underlying system could reveal the true ideological function of culture. Ideology would only show
its disenchanted, ‘true’ face, once the capitalist system was no longer taken as having a
natural, self-explanatory cause. This declared partiality; this clear starting position from
which analysis meant rejection, also meant a rupture with a previous generation of architectural historians who had combined their support for modern architecture with a claim
to objectivity and to the value-free status of science.52 Participating in the critique of ideology persuaded architectural historians to leave this artificial neutrality behind and instead
to take the clear stance of criticizing the objects under investigation.
In the previous chapters, we have seen how Tafuri tried to study the history of modern
47 I have based my account of the Venetian critique of ideology on two sources: firstly, Alberto Asor Rosa’s Scrittori e
Popolo, il populismo nella letteratura italiana contemporanea, Torino, 1965, which may be considered as the first study
produced with the insights of the new critique of ideology in mind; a literary history focusing on the representation
of common people by novelists. Also important is the short commentary written by Asor Rosa when the book was
republished in 1988: Alberto Asor Rosa, ‘Vent’anni dopo’, Scrittori e Popolo, new edition, Torino, 1988, pp. 7-18.
Secondly, there is the review published by Cacciari about the book, ‘Saggio su “Scrittori e popolo”, problemi generali
dell’indagine sul populismo’, Angelus Novus, no. 5, 1965, pp. 31-79. In this essay, Cacciari explains exactly how Asor
Rosa’s book should be seen as a product of the critique of ideology.
48 My italics. ‘l’intima aderenza che risulterà comprensibile solo allorché verrà studiata l’oggettiva funzione che insieme esse adempiono nel contesto di una determinata evoluzione sociale ed economica, cioè la loro sostanziale
‘politicità’. Cacciari, Saggio su ‘Scrittori e Popolo’, p. 31.
49 Francesco Dal Co, ‘La cultura di Le Corbusier’, Op.Cit.:selezione della critica d’arte contemporanea, January 1971,
pp. 45-53.
50 Dal Co argues: ‘and it is from this fragmentation that our argument starts, to show how architecture – most of all
architecture – results definitively consumed, unable not only to express an innovation that is radical enough to adapt
itself as a discipline to the intimate progressive values of crisis, but also incapable of reaching a comprehensive level
of self-awareness and ‘culture’ that permits it to position itself at a height comparable to that attained at the most
advanced points of the great bourgeois culture.’ (my translation), Dal Co, La cultura di Le Corbusier, p. 46.
51 ‘Le Corbusier . . . chiude e non apre un’epoca’, Dal Co, La cultura di Le Corbusier, p. 50.
171
architecture from a point of view that was not based on the accounts of the architects
themselves. The partiality of their point of view now enabled the Venetian architectural
historians to take an important step in this process. For the critics of ideology, the ‘language’ of analysis and criticism could not be identical with the ‘language’ spoken by the
object itself. This would have implied an obedience to the ideological content of the object
and ultimately an obedience to bourgeois society. Instead, it was important for them to
place themselves radically outside the bourgeois ‘system’ they studied. It was only from
this punto di vista that the analyst could grasp the precise ideological function of culture,
without being contaminated by its traditions and language.53 It was from this external
perspective, radically outside the system and employing a non-identical language of analysis, that we can understand why Dal Co spoke of Le Corbusier as an intellectual first
rather than as an architect. This point of view precisely explains the confronting and innovative character of Dal Co’s account.
Finally, for the Venetian critics it was crucial that the critica dell’ideologia should not be
seen as a critique of a specific, ‘false’ ideology, for example, of the ‘false’ idea that exploitation contributes to the well-being of the labourer. It is not the goal, so they said, to replace a ‘false’ ideology with a more correct one; instead their critique was aimed at ideology as a phenomenon in general.54 The Venetian ‘ideological’ critics were nourished by a
special conviction: they believed that in the twentieth century, ideology was ‘objectively’
losing its role as an element of social reality, that culture-as-ideology found itself in a process of decline.55 The Venetian critics of ideology believed they could accelerate this endprocess by studying it and by analysing the terminal agony of ideology in all its specific
appearances. Therefore, the authors of Contropiano specifically focused on the most recent phase of capitalist development, starting largely from the 1920s, a period coinciding
with the rise of modern architecture. It was during this phase that culture-as-ideology
experienced its death throws. One of the postulations of the Venetian critics was that
ideology became increasingly ingenious in order to secure its survival. The recent history
of ideology was therefore marked by increased complexity, however, ultimately this complexity covered over a failure. Again the Venetian thesis on ideology arises here: that the
superstructure is not so much determined by the substructure, but rather tries to secure
its own ‘necessary’ place within this realm. It was considered that while trying to prove
its absolute indispensability for the capitalist system, ideology was at the same time failing in the execution of its most essential task – that of the representation of a certain
52 For example, Stephen Games suggests that Nikolaus Pevsner ‘spent his professional life uncovering truths about art
and buildings but making sure that events in his own life remained disguised.’ Stephen Games (ed.), Pevsner on Art and
Architecture, The Radio Talks, London, 2002, Preface, p. 11. Compare this to a remark made by Tafuri in an interview:
‘I believe that criticism becomes scientific from the moment when it includes autobiographical data, and when one is
aware of this.’, ‘The Culture Markets, Françoise Very interviews Manfredo Tafuri’, Casabella 1995, p. 37.
53 In the essay ‘Vent’anni dopo’, Alberto Asor Rosa says about this position: ‘We, years ago . . . chose a low point of
observation: that is, we tried to look at the world as we thought those who knew they had to spend a great part of
their lives on the assembly line in a factory would look at it . . . This point of view is . . . not a mimetic attitude, but a
level and a way of observation: . . . to look at the world . . . (but) also at the cultural tradition, that is, to be outside of
it, as were . . . those whose side we had chosen.’ Alberto Asor Rosa, ‘Venti’anni dopo’, Scrittori e Popolo, Torino, 1988
(1965), p. 9.
172
ideal, a certain content. It is in this light that we may understand the condemnation of the
Modern Movement by the Venetian architectural historians. Dal Co stated in his article
that, in contrast to Le Corbusier, the Modern Movement did not apprehend the crucial
contradictions of its time and thus condemned itself to backwardness. This was a shocking hypothesis for those familiar with the Modernist accounts of Pevsner or Giedion.56
MASSIMO CACCIARI
Today, Massimo Cacciari is a productive Italian philosopher whose importance reaches
beyond national borders, with books translated into such languages as French, German,
Dutch, Spanish and English, amongst others.57 However, when Tafuri met him in 1968 he
was a young man whose political and activist horizon had been determined by the
emergence of a new type of chemical industry in nearby Porto Marghera. As a fifteen year
old boy Cacciari had visited these factories and met members of the traditional working
class, both workers of the older generation who had experienced the Resistance and had
been engaged in the Reconstruction, as well as a new generation of very young workers,
who had been born and raised in the 1950s, the years of the economic miracle.58 It was
in response to the new generation of workers, who were unencumbered by the past yet
very eager to engage in battle, that Cacciari formulated his first theoretical and
philosophical insights. His early work arose from within a ‘liberated’ and fresh intellectual
climate in which a new generation of young intellectuals had disengaged themselves
from the burden of traditional Marxism. Cacciari was looking for an unorthodox, unofficial
reading of Marx, distinct from the historicist-idealist Marx of Croce and Gramsci. He saw
a rupture between Hegel and Marx, rather than a continuity, and on this basis attempted
54
See in this light also the somewhat cryptic phrase in the introduction of Teorie e Storia dell’architettura: ‘just as it
is not possible to found a Political Economy based on class, so one cannot ‘anticipate’ a class architecture (an architecture ‘for a liberated society’); what is possible, is the introduction of class criticism into architecture.’ Manfredo
Tafuri, Theories and History of Architecture, Note to the second (Italian) edition, London, 1980.
55 For instance, Cacciari says in his essay: ‘Alberto Asor Rosa non nega alcuna idea ma, in effetti, ne analizza una già
storicamente “defunta”’, Cacciari, Saggio su ‘Scrittori e Popolo’, p. 32.
56 For Nikolaus Pevsner, it was of great importance that the Modern Movement captured the very essence of the
Zeitgeist: protagonists such as Gropius or William Morris were ‘revolutionary’ because they indicated a new place for
the arts in a society dominated by the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, for Pevsner, only architecture and design mattered in modern society because they alone had to exist in a social context and were therefore ‘truthful’. Pevsner even
went as far as to link the Geist of modern architecture to the Geist of the Nazi Regime, as both indicating the power,
purpose and unity that was to lead the Volk into the future. See Stephen Games, Pevsner on Art and Architecture,
London, 2002, ‘Introduction’, p. 11-15.
57 Cacciari wrote, among others works: Metropolis. Saggi sulla grande città di Sombart, Endell, Scheffler e Simmel,
Roma, 1973; Krisis. Saggio sulla crisi del pensiero negativo da Nietzsche a Wittgenstein, Milano, 1976; with Francesco
Amendolagine, Oikos: da Loos a Wittgenstein, Roma, 1975; Dallo Steinhof, Milano 1980; Icone della legge, Milano,
1985; Dell’Inizio, Milano, 1990. Of particular interest is the ‘postmodern translation’ and summary of his work in
English: Architecture and Nihilism: On the Philosophy of Modern Architecture, Mark Rakatansky, (ed.), New Haven,
1993.
173
Massimo Cacciari in 2005
to provide an anti-historicist, materialist interpretation of Marx.59
Cacciari developed a vision that was of great importance to the later development of
architectural history in Venice. At the basis of this vision was the conviction that at a
certain time in the modern period a crucial change had taken place in the way that
modernity was perceived. He believed that there must have been a fracture, which he
spoke of in terms of a ‘crisis of foundations’, and which was ultimately responsible for our
contemporary culture. For example, the essay ‘Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo’ (1969)
and the book Krisis. Saggio sulla crisi del pensiero negativo da Nietzsche a Wittgenstein
(1976), were the products of the same enterprise of tracing an alternative history and
looking for a different epistemology, one which was able to bring to light the notion of
Krisis as it dominated modern, contemporary life. While undertaking this project Cacciari
caused an outrage by introducing Nietzsche – the philosopher besmirched with nazism –
to an Italian left-wing audience. In his pensiero negativo, Cacciari connected Nietzsche to
Ludwig Wittgenstein as well as to the crisis of classical physics at the beginning of the
twentieth century. All these references signalled the ‘end of classical rationality and
dialectics and the full emergence, in a constructive, rephrasing and non-destructive way,
of the pensiero negativo.’60
For Cacciari, the pensiero negativo was implicit in the crisis of classical reason, which
for him implied a liberation from a totalitarian notion of knowledge. An order no longer
existed that was ‘natural, unchangeable and fixed’ and, in confrontation with which,
reason has to discover the laws, rules and patterns.61 For Cacciari, instead of a
law-seeking reason, knowledge should intervene in a creative way, giving a provisional
order to things while maintaining a multiplicity of ‘wisdoms’. In fact, in books such as
Pensiero negativo e razionalizzazione (1977) or Icone della Legge (1985), the reader will
search in vain for theoretical propositions or value judgements. Instead, Cacciari explains
his insights through a series of historical analyses which, with great interpretative ability,
review a great variety of topics from architecture to literature, mathematics and sociology.
It is a multidisciplinary approach, in which Cacciari set out to discover the conceptual
constants that mark all of these expressive disciplines. All of these investigations centred
around one idea which stood at the basis of the pensiero negativo: the notion of the
antinomical constitution of our world, its character as a non-synthesis, as a pendulum
swinging incessantly from thesis to antithesis.
To understand the radical and ‘offensively’ new framework of evaluation for modern
58 See an interview with Cacciari published as Ricardo Calimani, La Polenta e la Mercanzia, Rimini, 1984, pp. 60-64.
59
Under influence of Italy’s intellectual hero’s Croce and Gramsci, Marxism was placed in an idealist rather then
a materialist tradition, postulating a connection with Hegel rather then a rupture. Cacciari tried to break with this
tradition. See ‘Intervista a Mario Tronti sull’operaismo’, by Maurizio, August 2000, at:
http://indymedia.org/news/2003/02/166647.php
60 See Carlo Sini, ‘I dialoghi terreni di ‘aut aut’ in 50 anni di filosofia’ at: Sito Web Italiano per la Filosofia-Il manifesto,
29 Novembre 2001. http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/rassegna/sini.html
61 This is based on a quote by Catapano, referring to F. Restaino, ‘Il dibattito filosofico in Italia (1925-1990)’, in N.
Abbagnano, Storia della filosofia, Torino, 1994, p. 739.
175
poster announcing a conference on Nietzsche and politics, held in Venice at the I.U.AV., 1996
architecture which Tafuri introduced, it is necessary to give further attention to Cacciari’s
pensiero negativo, lingering as a backdrop to every page of Tafuri’s books and articles.62
In his thinking, Cacciari’s point of departure was Marx’s notion of development and
historical change. According to Marx, development is fuelled by a constant discrepancy
between the objective course of events and our subjective wishes. The driving force of
history is formed by our longing for an ideal situation, motivating us to constantly seek to
progress beyond, and to improve the existing situation. The heart of Marx’s dialectical
vision of history thus consists in a constant surpassing of the existing status quo.
For Marx the reality of capitalist society merely defines the present horizon and is not an
absolute historical point. However, the ideal socialist state also only defines the limits of
current wishful thinking. It is neither the ultimate destination of history nor its end
phase.
In his pensiero negativo, Cacciari adopts this aspect of Marx’s dialectics, conceiving of
history as an ongoing process which constantly surpasses the status quo. Cacciari
combines this reading of Marx with his own interpretation of Nietzsche’s Wille zur Macht
– contrary to subjectivist interpretations and the late-Romantic exaltation of creativity,
this concept now becomes a de facto descriptive category of the process of ‘objective’,
ongoing, irreversible rationalization.63 Cacciari does not agree with the messianic
character of Marx’s thought, with the notion that an ideal society will now be realized
through the intervention of man rather than God.
In essence Cacciari’s pensiero negativo is an attack on the Hegelian notion of dialectics
as formed by the tripartite system of thesis-antithesis and synthesis. It was also this
tripartite system that Cacciari recognised in Marx’s thinking, leading him to speak of an
ideal society for example, or of final harmony. The element of synthesis especially caught
Cacciari’s attention. Between the elements A and B a relationship is forged by an element
C which is essentially of another order, outside the existing system. In religious
messianic thinking, ‘God’ is the metaphysical element, from another sphere, that will
bring about a synthesis, occurring as a final harmony within this world. Cacciari’s pensiero
negativo rejects the notion of a metaphysical, ‘falsely harmonious’ synthesis. Instead, as
mentioned above, it postulates an incessant oscillation between thesis and antithesis.
For Cacciari, if reality is entirely ruled by the harsh laws of capitalism, then ‘values’ such
as humanity, unity and harmony should be regarded as falsely synthetic elements. In this
way, the pensiero negativo rejects the harmonious model in favour of a polarizing and
contrasting model.64
In his criticism of Marx, Cacciari was influenced by Nietzsche and thus, at the basis of
the pensiero negativo one finds the philosopher with the hammer wanting to crush all
62 Notice
here the parallel with the criticism of the Modern Movement as practiced by Tafuri and other architectural
critics; the attack on its unifying, rationalist planning procedures. It is on the basis of this background that we can
understand how Tafuri and Cacciari came together in Venice.
63 This paragraph is based on my Master’s thesis, Rixt Hoekstra, ‘Improbus Labor, Manfredo Tafuri en de
onmogelijkheid van een architectuurhistorische theorie’, Vakgroep Kunst-en Architectuurgeschiedenis,
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1994.
177
false ideology, every synthesis. The choice of Nietzsche’s nihilism was one of the most
fundamental decisions made by Tafuri and Cacciari during their careers. In 1973,
simultaneously with Tafuri’s Progetto e Utopia, Cacciari published the book Metropolis,
saggi sulla grande città di Sombart, Endell, Scheffler e Simmel, in which he further defined
his negative thought.65 Metropolis was the outcome of a joint project, the result of an
intellectual experiment in the laboratory founded by both Cacciari and Tafuri. At the start
of his book, Cacciari mentions how its contents had been discussed at length in Tafuri’s
course on the ‘urban and architectural history of Germany and the German sociology of
the city’, held during the academic year 1970-1971. These discussions had led Cacciari to
write the article ‘Note sulla dialettica del negativo nell’epoca della metropoli (saggio su
Georg Simmel)’, published in the review Angelus Novus in 1971, which formed the basis
of the opening essay of Metropolis.66
Not without reason, from the very beginning Cacciari had been a member of Tafuri’s
scientific faculty. As a professor of aesthetics Cacciari provided a crucial impulse in the
elaboration of a new historiography of architectural history. While Tafuri focused upon the
key moments of German architecture and urban planning in the early twentieth century in
his courses, Cacciari, in a series of parallel seminars, explained the contribution of the
sociologists and politicians living in that period. In this way, it was Cacciari’s goal to
substantially enrich and sharpen the thinking of architectural historians.67 At the same
time, for Cacciari, architecture provided an epistemological opportunity; a medium with
which to gain access to a view of reality that would not have been accepted in a
traditional philosophical faculty.
As part of Tafuri’s team, Cacciari was in a position to question the orthodoxies of the
intellectual and political left wing. In Metropolis, this resulted, among other things,
in renewed attention being paid to the ‘contaminated’ philosopher Nietzsche, who at that
time was still anathema for most left-wing philosophers. Equally, the book Metropolis
played a crucial role in the introduction of the German sociologist Georg Simmel (18581918) to an Italian audience. In Metropolis, Cacciari pointed to the renewed significance
of Simmel’s Philosophie des Geldes (1900) and especially to the importance of the essay
64 See Michel J. van Nieuwstadt, ‘De architectuur als fabel of Cacciari in Amerika’, Oase, Tijdschrift voor architectuur,
no. 44 , 1996, p. 52.
In the essay Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo Cacciari defines the pensiero negativo as the anti-dialectical way
of thinking that came into being in the period after the death of Hegel, with writers such as Heinrich von Kleist
(1777-1811) and Wilhelm Hoffman (1776-1822). The pensiero negativo becomes clear in their rejection of history as a
synthesizing master narrative, Cacciari argued, followed by a new awareness that putting oneself in the perspective
of tradition automatically implies being absorbed by Hegelian dialectics. The pensiero negativo opposes this absorption, as Cacciari explains: ‘Dialectics synthesizes in a general logical-temporal order also that which appears foreign
to that order . . . it is to underline the contrast with this form of ‘positivity’, that we call ‘negative’ . . . the thought that
does not accept the Hegelian dialectical synthesis . . . that proposes as substantially authentic exactly that which
is ‘eccentric’ and ‘subjective’. Massimo Cacciari, ‘Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo’, Contropiano, 1, 1969, p. 138,
(my translation).
66 Massimo Cacciari, Metropolis, saggi sulla grande città di Sombart, Endell, Scheffler e Simmel,
(collana di Architettura diretta da Manfredo Tafuri), Roma, 1973.
65
178
Die Grossstädte und das Geistesleben (1903).
These were highly significant moments in the intellectual ambience of 1960s Italy. Cacciari’s rereading of Marx in an anti-philosophical and anti-systematical manner – see,
for example, his attack on ‘classical rationality’ – inspired him to focus on Simmel, and in
the wake of this study, to focus on similar authors such as Werner Sombart and August
Endell.68 As well as the ‘impressionistic’ writings of Georg Simmel, Walter Benjamin also
played a key role in this process. Instead of developing a coherent theory of the big city,
instead of developing a ‘system’, Cacciari engages in a dialogue with all of these authors,
offering an exploratory analysis of the different voices of the city.
Cacciari’s Metropolis consists of two, clearly demarcated parts. In the first part he
presents an elaborate essay called ‘Dialettica del negativo e metropoli’, which unfolds
over sections bearing such names as ‘Sulla sociologia tedesca della città tra ‘800 e ‘900’
(On the Sociology of the City between 1800 and 1900) – and ‘La città come saggio’
(The City as an Essay). This part contains Cacciari’s effort to come to terms with the
meaning of the Metropolis, which bears fruit in the second part of the book. In this part
he provides an Italian translation of four key texts on the Metropolis, written by the
German sociologists Sombart, Endell, Scheffler and Simmel, all between 1898 and 1913.69
Instead of a philosophy of the city, he provides an analysis of the Metropolis as a mode of
being. This is Cacciari’s key message. His book is not a theory of the city; it is about the
thinking one produces whilst being in the city.
Thus, in Metropolis, Cacciari positions thinking as a product of the city while at the same
time discussing a number of authors who described and analysed life in the big city.
He does not provide a synthetic philosophy of the city, but describes urban reality as a
necessary condition for modern intellectual activity. What is the Metropolis according to
Cacciari? It is at one and the same time a mental category and a physical reality, as
Cacciari explains in the first pages of Metropolis. It is that critical phase where the
rationalization of the relations of production is followed by the rationalization of all social
relations. The city is the theatre, the necessary backdrop for every social construction and
every form of social change, for its economic patterns are reproduced in all possible
aspects and dimensions, not least within each subject.
67 M. Cacciari, ‘Note sulla dialettica del negativo nell’epoca della metropoli’, Angelus Novus, no. 21, 1971.
68
This method of parallel philosophical and historical courses was often used in Tafuri’s history department during
the 1970s. For example, in the 1970s Franco Rella, another philosopher working at the department, worked on an
interpretation of the work of Freud as a literary text. This resulted in a book called La Critica Freudiana, which was
one of the key publications of Tafuri’s Dipartimento di Analisi Critica e Storica. As Rella recalls in an interview, the
teaching schedule was made in such a way that his courses preceded those of Tafuri, with seminars held in common,
thus permitting the students to combine Rella’s analysis of theoretical and philosophical work with Tafuri’s lessons
dedicated to modern architecture. See La Critica Freudiana-Scritti di R. Gasché, Franco Rella (ed.), Milano, 1977.
Giulio Lupo, Mercedes Daguerre, ‘Entrevista con Franco Rella’, Materiales 5, PEHCH-CESCA, Buenos Aires,
March 1985, now at: http://www.bazaramericano.com
69 See Michel J. van Nieuwstadt, ‘De architectuur als fabel of Cacciari in Amerika’, Oase- tijdschrift voor architectuur,
no. 44, 1996, p. 49. Van Nieuwstadt’s essay is an important source for my account of Cacciari.
179
The form of the Metropolis is that of Vergeistigung, and this is why Simmel’s essay Die
Grossstädte und das Geistesleben (1903) plays such a crucial role in the book.
For Cacciari, the challenge was to define the relationship between the Metropolis, as the
focal point of rational capitalism, and the role played in this world by the ideology of,
for example, Kultur and Gemeinschaft. The laws of the ratio demanded a vision that was
totally transparent and bereft of all myths:
➛ In a metropolitan situation, the revolutionary process itself is totally intellectual.
The ‘geometric clarity’ with which, in the final analysis, class interest is posited,
eliminates all possible teleological or ethico-sentimental synthesis.’ 70
The metropolitan world consists of abstractions, Cacciari claims, in which the process
of rationalization and intellectualization is totally dominant, from economics to politics to
everyday life. In Die Grossstädte und das Geistesleben, Simmel points to the
consequences of this reality. He claims that the monetary market economy of the modern
Metropolis is not only decisive for the exchange of goods, but also defines the norms of
human interaction. This is the ultimate consequence of total rationalization. Just as in the
monetary system, where the value of products is decided by their monetary exchange
value and not by their intrinsic quality, so also in the interaction between people, the
unique character of each psychological experience is disregarded in favour of a notion that
measures a human being according to their place within the system. However,
for Cacciari it was of fundamental importance that the process of Vergeistigung, or the
interiorization of money circulation, was counteracted by an opposing movement.
Der Mensch ist ein Trostsuchendes Wesen: it is suggested that in order to function in the
modern, anonymous reality of the big city, it was necessary to let one’s Gemüt, or heart,
come forward every now and then. In the Metropolis, we find a constant oscillation
between the anonymous non-individual life of the collective and the archaic wish to
experience uniquely personal events. This process is characterized by Cacciari as follows:
‘the Metropolis has its basis in the antithesis between Nervenleben and Verstand’.
Cacciari translated Simmel’s findings into a paradoxical way of thinking, which suggests
that white can only exist because of black; in which thesis and antithesis hold each other
in balance and are in constant tension. This is the essence of the rationalist-capitalist system, which is comprehensive and all embracing: its ‘chiarezza geometrica’ of total
intellectualization brings about a transparency in which every element is consciously
organized and is thus a function of the system.
With the rise of the modern city in the middle of the nineteenth century a fundamental
problem comes to light: the erosion of both psychological introspection, seen as the
contemplation of one’s unique psyche, and the authentic experience of the individual,
inevitably leads to a gap opening between the intellectual and the metropolis.
The intellectual, which is to say, the writer, poet or architect, becomes compromised by
the Verdinglichung of society – by its mechanisms of mass production and mass
consumption. According to Cacciari, this gap cannot be bridged – the crisis between the
70
These texts are: Werner Sombart, ‘La metropoli’ (1912); August Endell, ‘Bellezza della metropoli’ (1908);
Karl Scheffler, ‘La metropoli’ (1913); Georg Simmel, ‘Roma, Firenze e Venezia’ (1898, 1906, 1907).
180
intellectual and the metropolis can only lead architects, poets and philosophers to express
their relationship with the city in terms of discord and rejection. This view of the schism
between the intellectual and the Metropolis affected Tafuri and his collaborators to a great
extent. It led them to conceive of twentieth-century architecture in terms of the history of
the confrontation between the intellectual and the metropolis. In Architettura Contemporanea (1976), Tafuri and Dal Co wrote:
➛ The intellectual, in substance, discovered that his own singularity no longer had its
place in the massified metropolis dominated by a technical capacity for infinite
duplication which, as Nietzsche saw with utter lucidity, had killed off once and
forever all sacredness and divinity. But at the same time the metropolis became the
very sickness to which the intellectual felt himself condemned: exiled in his
homeland, he could make one last attempt at dominating the evil that assailed him
by deciding to abandon himself of his own free will to a holy prostitution of the
soul.71
Both Tafuri and Cacciari saw the rise of the Modern Movement in the century of
rationalization as an essentially tragic event; as a ‘unique drama’, as Cacciari wrote in
Metropolis.
➛ The drama is the emergence . . . of an architecture of nihilism fulfilled as this
architecture comes to pervade the image of the Metropolis: it is the very figure of
pro-ducing, of leading-beyond, of continuous and indefinable overcoming.
The obsession with overcoming is embodied in the work of ‘radical uprooting’
carried out by this architecture: an uprooting from the limits of the urbs, from the
social circles dominant in it. . . . It is as though the city were transformed into a
chance of the road, a context of routes, a labyrinth without center, an absurd
labyrinth.72
As Tafuri wrote in Progetto e Utopia, ‘the experience of the tragic is the experience of the
Metropolis’.73 In Metropolis, Cacciari depicted the German Werkbund, founded in 1907,
as a part of the struggle to come to terms with this reality.74 While it was the aim of the
Werkbund to overcome the difference between ‘Stadt’ and ‘Metropolis’, at the Werkbund
conference of 1914 it became painfully clear that the frantic search for a new style was
accompanied by a complete absence of any notion of capitalist development.
The Werkbund thus demonstrated its own impotence in the light of the new urban reality.
However, the metropolitan framework also led to a focus on new protagonists in the
history of modern architecture. Cacciari points to the example of the industrialist,
politician and writer Walter Rathenau (1867-1922), who, as the metropolitan, calculating
decision-maker par excellence, head of the AEG company, epitomized the opposite of the
idealist Werkbund. From that point in time, Cacciari claims, a company such as AEG could
71
Quote taken from the English anthology of Cacciari’s work. See Cacciari, ‘The Dialectics of the Negative and the
Metropolis’, in Architecture and Nihilism, p. 6.
72 Manfredo Tafuri, Francesco Dal Co, Modern Architecture, (History of World Architecture), New York, 1986, part I, p.
87. This is an English translation of Tafuri’s and Dal Co’s Architettura Contemporanea, Milano 1976.
181
only be directed by a politician. At the same time, the architect Peter Behrens was
working for Rathenau. During a time in which Benjamin’s aura had already declined,
Behrens designed the AEG factory as a symbolic, almost sacred temple of mechanization
and rationalization.75
Cacciari concluded that the Metropolis annihilates all synthetic attempts to reach Stadt
– to found a Gemeinschaft as a dwelling for the individual. The Metropolis is governed by
the pensiero negativo, which does not make ‘positive’ propositions but questions and
casts doubt on the dominant patterns of thinking. The aim of both Simmel and Benjamin
was to ‘test the dialectical form, to make it explode’. However, in the end the pensiero
negativo is very much a function of the system, as it demonstrates the shortcomings of
dialectical thought – the synthetic ideology of a bourgeoisie that finds itself in a process
of increasing rationalization. It was this formulation of the pensiero negativo that was of
great importance for Tafuri’s view on the artistic avant-garde movements as elaborated in
the book Progetto e Utopia and elsewhere.
PROGETTO E UTOPIA
The experiences with Contropiano led Tafuri to publish the book Progetto e Utopia,
architettura e sviluppo capitalistico in 1973. From an alienated point of view – an ‘operaista’ point of view – an ‘alienated’ architectural history was conceived. Architectural
history was to be studied by historians who placed themselves outside the landscape
they observed. This position led Tafuri to write one of the most scandalous and shocking
introductions to modern architecture produced thus far. The first chapter of Progetto e
Utopia, architettura e sviluppo capitalistico began with the following lines:
➛ To ward off anguish by understanding and absorbing its causes would seem to be
one of the principal exigencies of bourgeois art. It matters little if the conflicts, contradictions and lacerations that generate this anguish are temporarily reconciled by
means of a complex mechanism, or if, through contemplative sublimation, catharsis
is achieved.76
For engaged architect-historians, for architectural historians with a background in art
73
Massimo Cacciari, Architecture and Nihilism: On the Philosophy of Modern Architecture, New Haven, 1993,
‘Epilogue: On the Architecture of Nihilism’ p. 199. These two quotes are from Michel J. van Nieuwstadt, ‘De architectuur als fabel of Cacciari in Amerika’, Oase, 1996, pp. 45 and 51.
74 Manfredo Tafuri, Architecture and Utopia, Design and Capitalist Development, Cambridge, Mass., 1976, (originally
published Bari, 1973), p. 78.
75 The German Werkbund was an association of artists, artisans and architects founded in 1907 in München with
the aim of promoting good design and craftmanship for mass produced goods and architecture. The history of the
Werkbund was one of the topoi relevant for the Venetian researchers see, for example, Francesco Dal Co, Teorie
del Moderno, architettura Germania 1880-1920, Bari, 1982. An important figure was Walter Rathenau, see Massimo
Cacciari, Walter Rathenau e il suo ambiente; con un antologia di scritti e discorsi politici, 1919-1921, Bari, 1979.
183
history, or even for those familiar with Hauser’s Social History of Art, this introduction was
as astonishing as it was incomprehensible. In the 1970s, most historians had already
exchanged Pevsner’s description of the architect as a ‘courageous and daring man’ for a
much more problematic notion of the profession, but most of them were still far from
considering the architect in terms of the ‘bourgeois intellectual’s obligation to exist’.
In Progetto e Utopia, the nature of Tafuri’s architectural history further crystallized.
From the point of view of this book, an architectural history as a history of styles – the
Baroque, Rococo, Classicism and so on – was no longer possible. However, Hauser’s The
Social History of Art (1951) became equally objectionable, since this book remained
highly classificatory, using traditional historical categories to depict a universal history
extending from the Stone Age to the present ‘Film Age’.77 Instead of the descriptive and
enumerative tone of Hauser, Tafuri’s history was interrogatory, starting from the friction
between different parties, from which arose what he called the ‘historiographical
problem’.
As Tournikiotis suggests, in the 1950s and 1960s books appeared that reassessed,
but also confirmed the legacy of the Modern Movement. Moreover, the books by Giedion
and Pevsner continued to be read by a generation of architects and critics who considered
the Modern Movement an absolute, incontrovertible fact.78 When Leonardo Benevolo
wrote his Storia dell’architettura moderna in the 1950s, he wanted to confirm the
cohesion and unity of the Modern Movement by verifying the universal status of its
rational method. It was in this context that Tafuri wrote what may be called a blueprint for
a totally new way of approaching architectural history. Surrounded by historicizing
accounts that linked the Modern Movement to experiences in the past and pointed to
possible horizons of growth, Tafuri broke with all illusions of continuity by composing his
book as an explosion of aphoristic essays, carrying disturbing titles such as ‘Form as
Regressive Utopia’, ‘The Dialectic of the Avant-Garde’ and ‘“Radical” Architecture and the
City’.79
Tafuri put forward a framework for the evaluation of modern architects that was shocking for those used to the supportive accounts of Zevi or Benevolo. Instead of writing about
architectural styles, or about modern architects as ‘heroes’, Tafuri created a metropolitan
world in which thinkers such as Baudelaire and Benjamin appeared alongside erudite
architects, architect-philosophers, or, in the case of Thomas Jefferson, architect-statesmen. Tafuri pointed to the singular and heretical messages of architects such as Le
Corbusier and Piranesi, whose thinking was far from a triumphant affirmation of
modernity. He also discussed skyscrapers as part of a specific ‘urban ideology’,
something which hitherto had been totally unheard of.80
Progetto e Utopia was an elaboration of the essays Tafuri had written for Contropiano.
76
I refer to Walter Benjamin’s famous theorem of the decline of the aura, as the destruction of the traditional
uniqueness of a work of art, and with this the decline of its unassailable character, its authority as a cult, a form of
worship almost. See L. De Cauter, De dwerg in de schaakautomaat, Benjamins verborgen leer, Nijmegen 1999.
77 Tafuri, Architecture and Utopia, p. 1.
78 Arnold Hauser, Sociale geschiedenis van de kunst, (1951) reprint, Nijmegen, 1975.
185
The first essay of the book, entitled ‘Reason’s Adventures: Naturalism and the City in the
Century of the Enlightenment’, reflected the fundamental ideas of ‘Per una critica
dell’ideologia architettonica’, published by Tafuri in Contropiano in 1969, while the essay
‘Ideology and Utopia’ was a recapitulation of the article ‘Lavoro intelletuale e sviluppo
capitalistico’, published in Contropiano in 1970. All of the essays in the book reflected the
fundamental insights of the article ‘Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo’, written by
Massimo Cacciari for Contropiano in 1969, while the ideas of Dal Co’s ‘Note per la critica
dell’ideologia dell’architettura moderna: da Weimar a Dessau’ (Contropiano, 1968) are
also present.81
The book is composed of eight essays which, under provocative titles, all deal with the
problematic position of the twentieth-century avant-garde movements in a world
dominated by the workforce and the market place. In Progetto e Utopia, Tafuri drew the
consequences of Cacciari’s pensiero negativo for the history of modern architecture.
He saw that the category of the eccentric and irrational, which only apparently did not
function within the system, could now be applied to the artistic avant-garde movements
of the twentieth century, for example, to the Dada movement. In other words, these
avant-garde movements were the latest manifestation of the pensiero negativo – they
expressed a complex, advanced form of ideology that used a relentless critique of society
in order to secure their functional position within the system. Only in this way could the
intelligentsia secure its own survival within the maelstrom of rationalization. In Progetto e
Utopia, Tafuri proceeds to trace the history of such intellectuals as Weber and Mannheim,
of Gropius and Sklovskij, suggesting that ‘at the beginning of the twentieth century,
the unmasking of idols that obstructed the way to a global rationalization of the productive
universe and its social dominion, became the new historical task of the intellectual’.82
However, Tafuri also observed an additional element. At the start of the twentieth
century, it no longer sufficed for ‘irrational’ intellectuals to undertake the critique of
ideology. As Tafuri analyzed, they now had to convert ‘negativity’ into ‘positivity’ and throw
79 P. Tournikiotis, The Historiography of Modern Architecture, Cambridge, Mass., 1999, p. 85.
80 The book contained the following chapters (following the English edition): ‘Reason’s Adventures: Naturalism and
the City in the Century of the Enlightenment’; ‘Form as Regressive Utopia’; ‘Ideology and Utopia’; ‘The Dialectic of the
Avant-Garde’; ‘Radical’ Architecture and the City’; ‘The Crisis of Utopia: Le Corbusier at Algiers’; ‘Architecture and its
Double: Semiology and Formalism’; ‘Problems in the Form of a Conclusion’.
81 Manfredo Tafuri, Progetto e Utopia, Architettura e sviluppo capitalistico, Bari, 1973. This book was translated into
English as Architecture and Utopia, Design and Capitalist Development, Cambridge, Mass., 1976 It was the first book
by Tafuri to be published in English, followed two years later by Theories and Histories of Architecture, published in
1979. The original chronology of publication was thus reversed. Tafuri’s Progetto e Utopia was widely translated:
in Germany, it was published as Kapitalismus und Architektur: von Corbusiers ‘Utopia’ zur Trabantenstadt, Hamburg,
1977; while in French it was published as Projet et Utopie, de l’avant-garde à la Metropole, Paris, 1977. This publication
was probably based upon a further elaboration of Progetto e Utopia, which appeared in Spanish in 1972: M. Tafuri,
M. Cacciari, F. Dal Co, De la vanguardia a la metropoli: critica radical a la arquitectura, Barcelona, 1972. Progetto e
Utopia received a more direct translation into Portuguese, where it was translated as Projecto e Utopia: arquitectura
e desenvolvimento do capitalismo, Lisboa, 1985. Finally, in Dutch the book was translated as Ontwerp en Utopie:
architektuur en ontwikkeling van het kapitalisme, Nijmegen, (Marxisme en Kultuur, Sunschrift 117), 1978.
187
themselves entirely behind the ‘construction of the future’. In Tafuri’s view, urban planning became the most conspicuous part of avant-garde ideology, as the concretization of
utopia, a positive ‘construction of the future’ – as a form of ‘realized ideology’ – aiming at
the domination of the future to secure its own survival in the present.
In the blueprint for the future that Progetto e Utopia offered, the identity of the new
architectural history fully came to light. The book was part of a new critical programme of
questioning the place of architectural ideologies within a capitalist system dominated by
rationality. Tafuri’s divorce from the normative practices of operative criticism, realized in
Teorie e Storia, enabled him to regard architecture in terms of its complex relationship
with society. From this distance, Tafuri formulated the principal thesis of Progetto e Utopia
suggesting that the decisive event in the history of twentieth-century architecture was
the failure of the artistic avant-garde. This failure was due to the fact that, despite all the
relentless attempts to ‘unmask idols’ and ‘break into pieces its own crystallized forms’,
people like Mannheim and Schumpeter, Gropius and Malevitsj went beyond a mere
critique of society, and so made a switch from the negative to the positive.
The history of modern architecture, Tafuri explained in Progetto e Utopia, was the
history of Scheler and of Gropius, of Mannheim and of Viktor Sklovskij. Certainly, all these
intellectuals had undertaken a critique of ideology, as they had all followed the method
described by Tafuri in Teorie e Storia: ‘We must pull ourselves out of the ditch / by our
bootstraps / turn inside-out / and see everything with new eyes’. However, this was not
sufficient for them. They had to turn this ‘negativity’ into a positive construction, into an
act of false consciousness resulting in what Tafuri had defined in the preface of Teorie e
Storia as a ‘class architecture’ – an architecture for a liberated society:
➛ Why is it that all the ‘tragedy’ of the great nineteenth-century Kultur, and all the
utopia of Weimar, could not survive except by seeking complete dominion over the
future?83
The utopia that resulted from these ‘positive’ operations was doomed to fail, because it
could not fulfil its revolutionary promises. At the very most it could be adapted into a
different, moderate form by a rational state system, in an act which only underlined the
impotence of any ‘positive’ attempt to change the system. Once more, the reality of the
all-embracing rational-capitalist system that does not leave space for alternatives to it is
revealed.84 It was the Norwegian painter Munch, who in his painting Scream, expressed
82
Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Per una critica dell’ideologia architettonica’, Contropiano, no. 1, 1969, pp. 31-79; M. Tafuri,
‘Lavoro intelletuale e sviluppo capitalistico’, Contropiano, no. 2, 1970, pp. 241-81; M. Cacciari, ‘Sulla genesi del
pensiero negativo’, Contropiano, no. 1, 1969, pp. 131-201; Francesco Dal Co, ‘Note per la critica dell’ideologia della
architettura moderna: da Weimar a Dessau’, Contropiano, no. 1, 1968, pp. 153-177. Representative of Tafuri’s work
during this period is also a review published by him, called ‘Socialdemocrazia e città nella Republicca di Weimar’,
Contropiano, no. 4, 1971, pp. 207-223, in which he combined, among other elements, the reading of Karl Korsch,
Schrifter zur Sozialisierung. Arbeitsrecht für Betriebsräte (1922) with Carlo Aymonino’s Origini e sviluppo della città
moderna (1971) and Karl Junghanns’ Die Beziehungen zwischen deutschen und sowjetischen Architekten in den Jahren
1917 bis 1933 (1967).
189
the total angst of the avant-garde intellectual confronting the cruel reality of the
Metropolis, and conveying a feeling of shock. While facing the possibility of their own
redundancy, of no longer having an ideological use within the system, progressive intellectuals discovered a new role for themselves precisely by letting the system explode
first, and then proceeding with the construction of new vistas.
➛ This was also the main objective of the historical avant-garde movements . . .
For Ball, as for Tzara, the destruction and the rendering ridiculous of the entire
historistic heritage of the Western bourgeoisie were conditions for the liberation of
potential, but inhibited, energies of that bourgeoisie itself.85
In the end, as Cacciari had already confirmed, it was the philosopher Nietzsche who
provided the key to understanding the position of the avant-garde. Their ‘relentless
critique’ should be viewed as fröhliche Wissenschaft. After the death of God, implying the
endless destruction of all security, the capitalist system could only obtain complete
dominion over reality if it was willing to say ‘Yes!’ to life; if it recognized all its powers,
both the positive and the negative, as essential to its own survival.
Progetto e Utopia marks a crucial phase in Tafuri’s development. To be sure,
the avant-garde’s demonstration of the impossibility to conceive of a better world also had
its consequences for the way in which Tafuri envisioned the historiography of modern
architecture. Because of the failure of the twentieth-century avant-garde, Tafuri looked for
a new framework from which to assess architectural history. Friedrich Nietzsche, Walter
Benjamin, Freud and Foucault became important sources of inspiration in the search for a
different, non-linear architectural history. It was precisely in this assessment of the
avant-garde that Tafuri broke most radically with the historiography of the Modern
Movement. While Pevsner and Giedion, as well as Zevi and Benevolo, had welcomed the
‘cheerful alienation’ of the avant-garde as the forerunners of a new era, Tafuri engaged in
a completely different intellectual operation.86 While Benevolo had pointed to the
‘European elementarist tradition’ and to the ‘flowery socialism’ of William Morris as the
precursors of modernism and as such as a desirable cultural policy, and while Zevi saw in
the work of Frank Lloyd Wright the incarnation of an ethical doctrine, Tafuri depicted the
tormented passages of ‘architectural ideology’ as it developed during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries as the technique of controlling the physical environment.
Tafuri looked for instruments to analyse the multiplication and fragmentation of these
techniques at the start of the twentieth century, an event that, according to him, had been
conveniently overlooked by the historiographers of the Modern Movement. Der Mensch
ist ein Trostsuchendes Wesen: the urgency and appealing character of the work of
83 Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Ideology and Utopia’, in Architecture and Utopia, pp. 50-51.
84 Ibid., p. 50.
85 As Tafuri wrote in Teorie e Storia: ‘Any attempt to overthrow the institution, the discipline, with the most exaspera-
ted rejections or the most paradoxical ironies – let us learn from Dada and Surrealism – is bound to see itself turned
into a positive contribution, into a ‘constructive’ avant-garde, into an ideology all the more positive as it is dramatically
critical and self-critical.’ Manfredo Tafuri, Theories and Histories of Architecture, p. 15.
190
Siegfried Giedion was, according to Tafuri, due to the fact that Giedion salvaged an already
shattered conceptual unity. In the same way, Nikolaus Pevsner was a ‘positive’
intellectual who offered a consoling notion of a unified Modern Movement to an
architectural culture already brought into crisis by the Great Depression, the complex
techniques of planning in New Deal America, the reality of Fascist Italy and the Russia of
the Five Year Plans.
HISTORY BEYOND THE MODERN MOVEMENT
In the 1970s, after the grand perspectives portrayed in Teorie e Storia and Progetto e
Utopia, Tafuri and his colleagues in the history department devoted their time to the
writing of a series of case studies. La Città Americana dalla guerra civile al New Deal
(1973) was one of the results of this strategy.87 The book contains four essays, all of
which are impressive for their analytical depth and historical precision.88 For example, in
the essay ‘Toward an “Imperial City”: Daniel H. Burnham and the City Beautiful
Movement’, we find the concrete results of the archaeological excavation of the modern.
Its author, Mario Manieri Elia, pointed to the importance of the figure of the ‘boss’ for the
social and architectural development of Chicago, viewed as the American laissez-faire
Metropolis par excellence. While Chicago’s growth was secured by, among others things,
the stream of immigrant workers from Eastern Europe, the figure of the ‘boss’ became
crucial as a mediator between different social groups, securing a fragile balance between
the exploited European immigrant workers and the American-born ‘Yankee’ workers.
However, Manieri Elia claimed that the ‘boss’ was not only important for the capitalist
production process. The archetypal architectural client was a ‘boss’, albeit this time an
American-born boss. It was the boss who commissioned parks, skyscrapers and so on,
just as it was this figure who provided the incentive for the development of a uniquely
American building type and later a ‘City Beautiful’.
Excavating the modern also meant that research into archives and other sources now
took a prominent place. In fact, in the introduction to La Città Americana the authors
expressed their ambition to write ‘the architectural history of another America’.
They focused on the problem of American architectural history and thus traced ‘America’s
radical divergence from the great apocalypse of European bourgeois culture’.89 As the
86 Manfredo Tafuri, Architecture and Utopia, Design and Capitalist Development, pp. 55-56.
87 See M. Tafuri, ‘Main Lines of the Great Theoretical Debate over Architecture and Urban Planning, 1900-1977’, A+U,
January 1979, pp. 113-154.
See G. Ciucci, F. Dal Co, M. Manieri Elia, M. Tafuri, La Città Americana dalla guerra civile al ‘New Deal’,
Bari, 1973, translated into English in 1976 as The American City, From the Civil War to the New Deal, Cambridge, 1979.
The four essays in this book are: Mario Manieri Elia, ‘Toward an “Imperial City”: Daniel H. Burnham and the City
Beautiful Movement’, pp. 1-122; Francesco Dal Co, ‘From Parks to the Region: Progressive Ideology and the Reform
of the American City’, pp. 143-261; Giorgio Ciucci, ‘The City in Agrarian Ideology and Frank Lloyd Wright: Origins and
Development of Broadacres’, pp. 293-343; and Manfredo Tafuri, ‘The Disenchanted Mountain: The Skyscraper and
the City’, pp. 389-529.
88
191
authors explained in their introduction, what makes America special in relation to
European cultural patterns, is the rapidity with which ‘the idea becomes technical’.
What becomes clear in the large cities of America is that creativity is not only a matter of
‘divine’ inspiration or esoteric vocation. In order to survive, culture had to be useful to
society and therefore it should develop techniques in order to exist. According to the
authors, ‘The American city is thus revealed as an enormous, form-defying product of
technique’.90
While the insights proclaimed in La Città Americana may seem speculative, what made
this book hard to ignore was that its innovative views were combined with very precise,
philological research. In fact, as Cohen argues, the authors of La Città Americana
displayed a concern for a direct contact with sources that had never been demonstrated
by such architectural historians as Zevi or Benevolo.91 In their introduction, they mention
an impressive list of research activities: from visits to libraries and archives in various
countries, to contacts with American universities and research institutes. What was also
important was the opening up of archive material that thus far had not been accessible to
study: for La Città Americana, the authors managed to use the personal archives of the
American architect Clarence S. Stein (1882-1975).92 La Città Americana provided one of
the first examples of a modern architectural history that was not only based on the study
of literature, but on primary sources and the study of original documents.
Though a member of the Communist Party, Tafuri twice managed to organize trips to
the United States.93 Firstly, in 1970, invited by Rudolf Wittkower, Tafuri organized a study
tour to Washington with his students; secondly, Tafuri was invited by Diana Agrest to give
a lecture as part of the series ‘Practice, Theory and Politics in Architecture’, held at
Princeton University in 1974. The research leading to La Città Americana becomes even
89
This book should be viewed in the context of a fascination for America that was shared by researchers such as
Francesco Dal Co and Marco and Cesare de Michelis in the years before Tafuri came to Venice. They contacted the
radical philosopher Antoni Negri in Padua, who was then engaged in research leading to the writing of an alternative
history of Roosevelt’s New Deal, seen through the prism of workers’ revolt. Negri suggested that the history of
capitalist America could be written as a reaction to the development of the workers. From the Wall Street Crash of
1929 onwards, capitalism had to redefine itself. It had to develop new effective instruments if it wanted to maintain its
hegemony. Roosevelt’s New Deal was, for Negri, an example non plus ultra of the installation of such new techniques.
See Jon Beasley Murray, ‘Lenin in America’:
www.art.man.ac.uk./spanish/writings/empire.html
90 Tafuri and his colleagues were not exceptional in pointing to the importance of American experiences. For example,
in the History of Modern Architecture (1960), Leonardo Benevolo had dedicated a crucial chapter to what he called the ‘American Tradition’. However, Benevolo still thought of modern architecture in terms of a unified Modern
Movement: starting from a notion of modern architecture as being united across continents, Benevolo saw America’s
diverging character with respect to Europe as a sign that America was more advanced, forming an avant-garde in the
development of a universal-modern language. L. Benevolo, History of Modern Architecture, vol. 2: The Modern
Movement, Bari, 1960, see Chapter Seven: ‘The American Tradition’, p. 191ff.
91 As the authors state, the creative process has become imbued with an almost scientific efficiency; architecture
and city planning have become ‘agents of the ponderous process of transformation set in motion by the American
capitalist system in determining the urban structure.’ Ciucci, The American City, Introduction, pp. 6-7.
193
Monadnock Building Chicago, Daniel Burnham and John Root, 1889-1892. From Tafuri and Dal Co’s Architettura Contemporanea.
more impressive when realizing that these trips never took more than a few days –
considered a Communist, Tafuri was not allowed into the country for a longer period.
Breaking with the ‘false’ homogeneity of the Modern Movement also had its
consequences for the form of architectural history. As is the case for Teorie e Storia and
Progetto e Utopia, the book La Città Americana dalla guerra civile al New Deal assembled
a number of essays based around a central historiographical ‘problem’. In fact, as a
consequence of his pensiero negativo, Cacciari had already defined a peculiar kind of
discourse in which the author did not simply write down ideas, but entered into a dialogue
with a variety of authors, from Sombart to Simmel, to Benjamin and Weber. The radical
nature of negative thinking excluded a real ‘theory’, in the sense of a homogeneous,
unified argument. An essence was no longer possible, according to Cacciari, leaving the
plurality of many voices and opinions.
In Teorie e Storia, Tafuri pointed to the Quattrocento as the period in which a long
process of the desecration of values had started. The first ‘institution’ to be desecrated
was history considered as the provider of a narrative carrying a meta-human ‘truth’. In the
Quattrocento, Tafuri argued, the classical concept of aesthetic organicism comes to an
end, leading to the downfall of both figurative unity and historical continuity.94
An explosion takes place, so to speak, causing a ‘primordial’ unity to burst into a series of
separate fragments that, although originating from a historical context, no longer possess
an absolute value based on their place within a continuous, systematic discourse. In this
world of fragments, both the architect and the historian are obliged to establish a
construction, a bricolage, consisting of an autonomous summation of historical quotes.
For Tafuri, this was the final consequence of the desecration of history: a universal and
uniform account, carrying the same meaning for all people, was exchanged for a notion of
history that was more personal and less absolute and in which the content depended on
the composition that was created in the present; on the way history was represented by
a specific author in a specific time and place. The form of Tafuri’s books; the way in which
he presented knowledge through a series of aphoristic essays, reflects this process.
92 Jean-Louis Cohen, ‘La coupure entre architectes et intellectuels, ou les enseignements de l’italophilie’, In extenso,
1984, p. 190.
Ciucci, The American City, Introduction, p. 14. Another example of the research practices developed at the
beginning of the 1970s by these historians is the book Socialismo, città, architettura URSS 1917-1937, Manfredo
Tafuri (ed.), Roma, 1972. This book is a compilation of papers from a conference that was organized by Tafuri and his
colleagues in the summer of 1970. The goal was to compare their research results with foreign specialists from
different research traditions. Thus, we see the participation, among others, of Kurt Junghans from Germany and
Gerrit Oorthuys from the Netherlands. This is one of the first examples, as far as I know, of a conference dedicated
exclusively to the research methods of modern architectural history. What is also remarkable is the participation in
this conference of the German architect Hans Schmidt, who was one of the protagonists in their research. Notably,
this book was published as part of a series, directed by Tafuri, dedicated to the ‘re-examination of the episode of
modern architecture and the techniques of planning in the light of the Marxist critique of ideology.’
93
195
ALLONTANARE L’ANGOSCIA!
While the students were protesting in the streets of Venice, Tafuri remained at the
university working on the creation of an institute, a ‘school’ dedicated exclusively to the
history of architecture. Revolution! For the first time in Italian history, architectural history
was no longer an activity for the architect-dilettante, but a serious profession. Even today,
courses such as Avant-garde, city and ‘the plan’ in the Soviet Union, 1917-1937 (1971-72);
or Avant-garde, architecture and city in Germany, 1905-1933 (1970-71), are impressive for
their innovative approach and their analytic depth. In 1976, Tafuri and his team made the
new identity of architectural history totally manifest by changing the name of Zevi’s
Istituto di Storia dell’Architettura into Istituto di Analisi Critica e Storica (Institute for
Critical and Historical Analysis). The words ‘architecture’ and ‘architectural history’ were
absent from this name in order to emphasize that, as a matter of historical critique,
architecture had become a category of analysis with which to confront the complex strata
of social reality. As Franco Rella states, it is the task of the critic to ‘do violence to the
object of analysis’, while Walter Benjamin spoke of ‘intervening destructively into the
material’.95 Attacking the idol-like status of architecture – fragmenting it – first opened the
way to a critical outlook on reality.
The institute became the locus for Tafuri’s travels through the landscape of the
avant-garde movements, the planning procedures in the USSR, the adventures of the
skyscrapers in the USA, and the event of Sozialpolitik in Weimar Germany. In 1976 all
these different analytical lines were assembled and woven together in Architettura
Contemporanea, a survey of the ‘modern’ in architecture, which defied all attempts at
historical categorization and portrayed instead a complex fresco containing several
narrative axes, which ranged from ‘the origins of town planning’, to architecture and town
planning in the USA, to ‘Northerly Romanticism’ in Scandinavia and Catalonian Modernism, and from classicist ‘architecture without avant-garde’ to the contribution of the
Bauhaus.96 Architettura Contemporanea, written by Manfredo Tafuri and Francesco Dal
Co, can be seen as the Venetian historians’ answer to Pevsner’s Pioneers of the Modern
Movement (1936), or to Giedion’s Space Time and Architecture, The Growth of a New
Tradition (1941), and equally as an answer to Zevi’s and Benevolo’s histories of modern
architecture.
The survey of the history of modern architecture was no longer considered a technician’s manual, providing the rules designed to govern architectural developments.
As Tafuri stated in an article, he saw the books by his predecessors as ‘salvage
operations’, mere products of ideology made to ‘dis-alienate habitable space’.97 As an
94 See
Joan Ockman, ‘Venice and New York’, Casabella, The Historical Project of Manfredo Tafuri, no. 619-620, 1995,
pp. 57-71. Also for Tafuri’s first trip to America see Passerini, History as Project, pp. 53-54.
95 The classical concept of aesthetic organicism departed from the organic unity of a work of art and claimed that a
work of art may be compared to a living organism: the relationship between its parts is not arbitrary, but functional
and logic as are the organs of a living body. See, on this theme, Caroline van Eck, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century
Architecture: an Enquiry into its Theoretical and Philosophical Background, Amsterdam, 1994.
196
alternative to the utopian visions of the Modern Movement, Cacciari put forward a
negative variation of a phrase from a poem by Hölderlin – one which, not by chance, had
been extensively commented on by Martin Heidegger in its original form. Dichterisch
wohnet der Mensch (poetically man dwells) now became Undichterisch wohnet der
Mensch (man dwells unpoetically).98 In other words, in attacking the monumental
historiographical construction of the Modern Movement, Tafuri and Cacciari, with a critical
reference to Heidegger, put forward the motto Undichterisch wohnet der Mensch as an
answer to Pevsner’s ‘movement of collective consciousness’.99 This is important: the attack on the historiographical tradition by means of philosophy and theory had its consequences for the sort of architectural history they envisaged. While the production of a
new type of housing had always been an important programmatic point for modern
architects, Cacciari now raised this issue to an existential level and addressed the issue of
‘dwelling’, of living in the modern world, suggesting that just as Heideggers’ Sein zum
Tode entails the acceptance of mortality and finitude as the condition for our being human,
so it is the acceptance of the fact that existence is a fathomless enigma without stable
core that forms the condition for our dwelling. It is a dwelling while knowing that there is
no foundation, no final explanatory cause, beyond the provisional foundations we create
in daily life in order to survive. As Cacciari argued, the uprooted spirit of the metropolis is
not ‘sterile’ but productive par excellence: it is in the gaia scienza, in the absence of a
heim or an absolute belonging, that we produce dwellings.
In a historiographical sense, dwelling without a foundation means that there is no longer
a hegemonic discourse, a privileged point of view according to which the contributions of
many different architects can be brought together. Instead of the unity of a desirable
modern strategy, there is the plurality of many histories as they penetrate, organize and
re-organize, and finally disperse into the world. For Tafuri and his Venetian researchers this
kind of Realpolitik – this disenchanted expectation – provided the answer to the
normative, ‘operative’ criticism of a previous generation of architectural historians.100
ARCHITECTURE: A USEFUL CATEGORY OF ANALYSIS
Our history might end here, with Tafuri’s introduction of a new canon. However,
the historiographic rupture enforced by Tafuri was not thematic by nature: it did not imply
shifting the attention from ‘modern’ to ‘non-modern’, nor exchanging one century for
another. Instead of a change in historical content, Tafuri’s rupture entailed a fundamental
change of attitude on the part of the historians themselves. In other words, it entailed a
methodological change that implied the proposal of a new programme for architectural
history.
96 Franco Rella, Miti e Figure del Moderno, Parma, 1981, p. 115.
97 Manfredo Tafuri, Francesco Dal Co, Architettura Contemporanea, Milano, 1976.
98 See Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Main Lines of the Great Theoretical Debate over Architecture and Urban planning 19601977’, A+U, January 1979, pp. 139-140. Tafuri refers to attempts to resist the alienation of habitable space.
99 Masssimo Cacciari, ‘Eupalinos or Architecture’, Oppositions, 21, 1980, pp. 169-181.
197
As demonstrated in this book, Tafuri’s rupture with a previous historiographical tradition
unfolded along two axes. Firstly, for Tafuri, the history of modern architecture was no
longer conceivable as an aesthetic-normative account. Breaking with the notion of
operative history thus meant leaving the liberal-humanist perspective on historical development – leaving history as ‘Bildung’. However, what makes this rupture so interesting is
that it had its consequences for the narrative of architecture and for the representation of
its historical development- and this is the second axis. The theoretical and in part philosophical questioning of the historiographical tradition was brought to its final conclusion
by elaborating a different historical analysis and, above all, a different phrasing of the
research question.
As demonstrated in this chapter, the Venetian researchers thus explored archives
before writing their history of American architecture and they came to consider the
importance of philological precision for architectural history. The history of architecture
was no longer the representation of the ‘Good, True and Beautiful’, rather, beyond good
and evil, architecture was primarily part of social reality. Instead of a ‘theology of history’
that envisioned the historical process as a series of progressive stages leading to the final
truth about history, for Tafuri ‘plurality’ and ‘complexity’ became key words to describe the
social presence of architecture. For Tafuri the architectural historian was no longer a guide.
Instead, he envisioned architectural history as being one of many specializations studying
the past: architectural history was now positioned alongside cultural history, the history of
religion, political history and so on. Instead of being a guiding light, architectural history
became a useful category of historical analysis.
The study of architecture as a socio-historical artefact, as a complex presence in a
political, cultural and economic setting, required a more complex notion of time than the
‘linear histories’ used by previous historians. While rejecting a triumphalist conception of
history and its concomitant notion of progress, the Venetian historians discovered Walter
Benjamin’s essay Über den Begriff der Geschichte (1940). In this essay Benjamin
described progressive history as the ‘time of the clock’, as an empty space that was filled
in a mechanical way with an accumulation of data. Benjamin contrasted this homogeneous and indifferent notion of time with the ‘time of the calendar’, which
differentiates between more and less important moments and points at discontinuities,
at moments in which the flow of time is stopped to give way to an event that for us is of
special value.101
Focusing on the discontinuities of history was essential for Tafuri in the development of
a non-narrative, problem-oriented history. These discontinuities could also be found in the
different tempi used by Ferdinand Braudel in his key publication La Mediterranée et le
monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II (1949). To study the complexities of the
past, a variety of sources had to be consulted that surpassed all traditional disciplinary
100 At the end of the 1950s, Nikolaus Pevsner turned against the ‘conservation’ of
the Modern Movement as a set of
singular buildings and instead made a plea for a ‘collective consciousness’ as the essence of the movement. See Mark
Wigley, ‘The Architectural Cult of Synchronisation’, The Journal of Architecture, Vol. 4, no. 4, 1999, pp. 409-435.
198
boundaries. As Braudel demonstrated, geography placed alongside human history and
economic theory could be used in combination with psychological and sociological
analysis. Together with the different tempi of history, these sources constituted the
refined set of instruments required by the historian in order to define, in each historical
episode, the problem or das Fragwürdiges.
The French nouvelle histoire became exemplary for a ‘nouvelle architectural history’.
For example, Tafuri’s colleague Donatella Calabi took Braudel’s Les jeux de l’echange
(1979) as the point of departure for a history of European ports. In the book Il Mercato e
la città; piazze, strade, architettura d’Europa in età moderna (1993), Calabi explained the
successive hegemonic positions of Venice, Antwerp, Genoa, Seville and Amsterdam in
terms of their place in a global system of commerce and trade.102 She adopted Braudel’s
notion that the market economy was not suddenly introduced into the modern world but
that, instead, a slow transition from one system to another had taken place. Urban history
could now be depicted as a gradual replacement of what Walter Christaller had described
as the medieval central place theory by the modernity of Immanuel Wallerstein’s world
system theory. As Wallerstein claimed, the fate of the cities was now decided by their
place in a network of commerce and commercial traffic and by an intricate logic of the
centre and the periphery. Calabi’s ‘mercato’ (market) pointed to both the material reality of
a city and to the socio-political mechanisms that underlay its appearance.
Emphasizing the social significance of architecture also cleared the way towards that
other French innovator who was hard to overlook for a historian working in the 1970s:
Michel Foucault. Tafuri and his collaborators came to regard architecture and the built
environment as part of a system of power, as instruments in the exercise of that power.
Architecture now became a technique of power, a mechanism of control and
manipulation. While trying to draw the consequences of Foucault’s insights for
architecture, Tafuri’s collaborator Georges Teyssot formulated a sub-programme within
Tafuri’s main research programme, together with other Venetian researchers such as
Renzo Dubbini, who studied prison architecture, and Donatella Calabi who studied
domestic architecture in Great Britain and France in the nineteenth century.
The challenge was to derive the instruments for a historical and non-linear approach to
the history of architecture and urbanism from the study of Foucault. As the philosopher
Franco Rella wrote on the occasion of a seminar dedicated to Foucault: ‘Foucault has once
and for all broken with a linear conception of history and has forced us to confront those
complex formations that can not be analysed in terms of progress, but only in terms of
conflict and the entanglement of relations of power.’103 It was within this context that
Teyssot became interested in the concept of the heterotopia. He was fascinated by the
101
I have based this paragraph upon Nico van der Sijde, Het literaire experiment, Jacques Derrida over literatuur,
Amsterdam, 1998, pp. 17-18, and Geert Hovingh (ed.), Architectuur en filosofie, More songs about buildings and food,
Reader Academie van Bouwkunst Groningen, 1988, pp. 53-111.
102 See, for example, M. Cacciari, ‘Metropoli della mente’, Casabella, no. 4, 1986, pp. 14-15, for a reflection upon
‘clock time’ and ‘calender time’. See also Franco Rella (ed.), Critica e Storia, Materiali su Benjamin di M. Cacciari et al.,
Venezia, 1980, for a specifically ‘Venetian’ interpretation of Benjamin.
199
notes made by Giuseppe Samonà about Foucaults’ Discipline and punish, the birth of the prison. Fondo Samonà,
I.U.A.V., Archivio Progetti.
case study elaborated by the French historian Jean-Claude Perrot, who discovered that
between 1740 and 1750 the ‘sanitarian organization’ of the city of Caen in Normandy had
been executed according to a certain logic.104 A grid-like pattern could be found, Perrot
claimed, dividing institutions such as hospitals, prisons and charitable organizations
according to a logic that suggested variations from total imprisonment to
semi-confinement, from being locked away as a criminal to the sheltering of the ‘unruly’
– orphans, the elderly, or the insane, for example.105
For Teyssot, Caen was important because it constituted what Foucault called a
heterotopia. As Teyssot emphasizes, the case of Caen does not correspond to modern
regimes of confinement: a gap exists between Caen’s ‘sanitarian organization’ and
assistance practices as we know them today. A discontinuity lies at the basis of the
heterotopia, however, this does not only exist in a historical perspective. Already in its
own time, Caen constituted an exception, a strange anomaly among other cities, so to
speak. The example of Caen was discontinuous both in terms of geography, compared to
other cities, and in terms of chronology, in the progressive development of the modern
hospital. As Teyssot confirms, these discontinuities demonstrate once more that the
history of the hospital cannot be described as a smooth progression from one stage to
another – from its mythical birth to its equally mythical final stage.106
The example of the city of Caen, as a concrete heterotopia, can be seen as an example
of what Heidegger calls a Holzwege: the discontinuous tracks in the forest that do not
lead to a particular goal, but that stop as abruptly as they start.107 History is discontinuity,
and Teyssot and other researchers at Tafuri’s department now concentrated on the
functioning of a so-called ‘dominant urban strategy’ as it fragments and penetrates into
every aspect of urban life. An urban strategy defines our way of dwelling, working and the
collective facilities at our disposal: in sum, it defines our life in the city. While this is the
reality of a ‘powerful space’, its counterpart of opposition and reaction should also not be
overlooked: ‘Yet because of the programmes’ excess of logic and theoretical
absoluteness, they inevitably meet with resistance. In fact, the people who they are
applied to, who are too often regarded as malleable masses to be educated, slum-cleared
103 Donatella Calabi, Il Mercato e la città; piazze, strade, architettura d’Europa in età moderna, Venezia, 1993.
104 See M. Cacciari, F. Rella, M. Tafuri, G. Teyssot, Il dispositivo Foucault, Venezia, 1977, Introduction by Franco Rella,
p. 17: ‘Foucault ha rotto definitivamente con una concezione lineare della storia e ci ha costretto a misurarci con delle
formazioni complessi analizzabili non in termini di progressi, ma di scontro e intreccio di relazioni di potere.’ Besides
such thinkers as Freud and Nietzsche, Foucault was another intellectual discussed in the seminars and courses of the
historical department. The Venetian architectural historians did not simply adopt Foucault’s view; their ambition was
to enter into a critical dialogue with him. For people such as Rella and Cacciari, Foucault did not answer the question
concerning the transformation of societal ‘institutions’ in a satisfactory way, and as regards its ‘languages’, such as
those of the hospital, sexuality or the episteme, Foucault’s thinking was still too static for them.
105 Jean-Claude Perrot, Genèse d’une ville moderne. Caen au XVIII siècle, (diss. Paris 1973), Lille, 1974. Perrot was a
representative of 1970s ‘nouvelle histoire’ that started to question the historiographical tradition. He delineated new
objects and new approaches to urban history.
106 Teyssot, ‘Eterotopie e storia degli spazi’, in: Il dispositivo Foucault, pp. 23-35.
201
and put in order, appear positively intractable in face of them.’108
Discontinuity is now the plane of fracture between the success of a strategy and those
places where its exercise of power fails. This plane of fracture forms a crisis, a clash,
which however, is a necessary ingredient in the complexity of urban space, in its mosaic,
consisting of active and counter-active forces. Urban reality is now an infinite complex of
strategies with different interests, of successful and failed attempts, of inarticulate,
subversive and even unconscious tendencies, but also of ‘normal’, explicit influences.
More than forty years after Pevsner’s Pioneers of the Modern Movement, the field of
historiography under Tafuri resembled Heidegger’s Holzwege. Instead of the exchange of
master narratives resulting in another triumphalist history of modernity, Tafuri’s programme was based on the recognition that history consists of the complex, labyrinthine
structure of Heidegger’s Holzwege – the constellation of small trails in the forest that lead
nowhere. This form of architectural history was Tafuri’s answer to the unified and
teleological histories that gave rise to the Modern Movement.
107 Ibid., p. 25.
108
This is how Heidegger described the Holzwege: ‘In the wood there are paths, mostly overgrown, that come to an
abrupt stop where the wood is untrodden. They are called Holzwege. Each goes its separate way, though within the
same forest. It often appears as if one is identical to the other. But it only appears so. Woodcutters and forest keepers
know these paths. They know what it means to be on a Holzweg.’ Martin Heidegger, Off The Beaten Track, J. Young,
K. Haynes (ed.,), Cambridge, 2002 (originally published as Holzwege 1950).
109 Paolo Morachiello, ‘The Department of Architectural History – a detailed description’, p. 70, Architectural Design
– The School of Venice, no. 5-6, 1985.
202
203
Tafuri as a guru. From www.arch-fanzine.fiume10.org
EPILOGUE
THE QUEST OF THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
➛ As first-year students at the I.U.A.V., we experienced a great shock. We attended
the courses in architectural history given by Manfredo Tafuri: in his lessons, the attention shifted from proper architecture to something called ‘the ideology of architecture’. For us, that was an incredible step to take, like the change from studying
animals to studying the psyche of humanity.1
These words recall Alessandro Fonti’s personal Chockerlebnis after being exposed to
Tafuri’s historiographical rupture for the first time. It must have been an alienating
experience for Tafuri’s students to witness what seemed like a voluntary exchange of the
security of a material stronghold for the insecurity of the vague and transient world of
ideas. It was an absurd capriccio, perhaps, to go beyond the materiality of a phenomenon
which, in the case of architecture, is so clearly marked by its concrete manifestation.
Manfredo Tafuri was one of the most important architectural historians of the twentieth
century. He was the initiator of an emancipatory process in which architectural history
grew from an auxiliary science for architects, and a Cinderella for art historians, to a
fully-fledged academic discipline. My thesis in this study has been that Tafuri should be
considered as a builder; as a constructor of the academic discipline of architectural
history, and that his historiographic value should be seen in close relation to this role.
I have argued that Tafuri’s career is exemplary for its role in the realization of an academic
discipline. By making a plea for non-operative architectural history, Tafuri engendered a
crucial phase in the growth of architectural history as an independent, autonomous
historical discipline.
Tafuri struggled to make architectural history an independent subject within the
humanities. His professional life involved a fascinating journey from a supportive use of
history – history as a means to validate the design choices of architects, for example –
to a conception of history in which architecture and urban planning were seen as
instruments for reflection on society. For Tafuri, the challenge of the architectural
historian was to bring meaning to the material artifacts of architecture and urban planning
by providing them with a sense within the broader context of social, political and artistic
history. The stress he put on the complexity of a building or an architect should be viewed
in this light. Tafuri’s most distinctive move was to put architectural history forward as a
history of mentality. This was a provocative act for an architectural historian whose
discipline was so concerned with its material manifestation. Tafuri favoured the spiritual
and ‘mental’ qualities of architecture and spoke of it in terms of symbols, sentiments,
1 In May 2002 I interviewed Professor Alessandro Fonti at the I.U.A.V. in Venice, during which he explained his
experiences as a student of Tafuri at the end of the 1960s. This is one of his statements during the conversation (my
translation). Alessandro Fonti is now a professor in architectural history at the I.U.A.V.
205
beliefs, attitudes and imagination. He gave architectural history a place among such fields
as literature, religion and the history of everyday life.
It is my contention that, among the many possible perspectives on this historian, it is
important to understand his work in the light of its Italian background, more specifically,
in the light of the meaning that architecture conveys within Italian society. In a country
that is so extensively defined by its built, material heritage, architecture has a unique
relevance. Throughout Italian history, architecture has been a privileged medium for
reflecting events within society. In no other Western country has architecture absorbed
and represented the history of cities, regions and the nation to such an extent. In Italy,
architecture assumes the form of a ‘solidified history’: it is in this light that Tafuri’s stress
on the layered, plural presence of meaning in a building should be viewed.
In this study I have argued that a second explanation for Tafuri’s work can be found in the
intellectual climate of the 1960s. The centrality of architecture to Italian society re-emerged
and dominated the cultural revolution of the 1960s, knitting the two closely together.
While in the Western world the 1960s were decisive for much of academic life as we
know it today, in Italy the faculties of architecture were true centres of innovation and
change and so formed an avant-garde in this process. It was through architecture that
epistemological change – changes in knowledge and its place in society – was
communicated.
The presence of the philosopher Massimo Cacciari at the architectural historical
department and his close relationship with Tafuri is explained by this fact. For Cacciari
architecture was a touchstone which allowed him to formulate a different kind of
knowledge. From this basis, he attacked Cartesian rationality through Loos’ hatred of
ornament, Baudelaire’s vision of Paris, and Georg Simmel’s ‘nervous life’ in the
Metropolis. The dominant role of architectural historians in the journal Contropiano and in
the elaboration of a different Marxist critique of ideology should also be viewed in this
context. While holding on to the specificity of their own domain, architecture became part
of a larger project attempting to deal with knowledge in a certain way, viewing and
criticizing the world from a certain point of view.
While architecture was perhaps the most tangible of the disciplines hoping to contribute
to an improved world, it was precisely in the study of this field that Tafuri and his
colleagues took an unexpected step. Architecture became the privileged material through
which to shape the new, heretical identity of the left-wing intellectual. It was no longer the
point of departure for a progressive-constructive world view, instead, it became the
touchstone for the destructive-critical task of the intellectual. To paraphrase Cacciari’s
‘theory of the Metropolis’, it was a change that was not conducted through language but
through architecture.
Through his early infatuation with the Marxist critique of ideology, followed by a period
of doubt and disillusionment and an opening of his thinking towards the histoire des
mentalités, the French Annales School and Foucault, Tafuri represents an important
development in the intellectual history of the second half of the twentieth century.
The value of his historiography also lies in the fact that he demonstrated that architectural
history was not peripheral to those developments, but on the contrary formed an
206
important area of experimentation in its study of urban spaces, artistic languages, and the
interaction of these with society.
Tafuri made architectural history relevant to a wide array of disciplines from history,
to philosophy, cultural studies and sociology. At the same time, he demonstrated the
relevance of intellectual developments – micro-storia, psycho-history, the nouvelle histoire
to name but a few – to the material of architectural history. For architectural historians,
this implied a passage from a modern-positivist belief in a neutral science, to a new stress
on the methodology of the historian – on the role of his or her point of view in the
structuring of a historical account. However, Tafuri never ‘simply’ applied the insights
gained in other disciplines: the value of his historiography is closely connected to the way
in which he positioned himself as an equal partner in conversation, with Foucault, Gilles
Deleuze and others. He was convinced that the study of architecture necessarily involved
an epistemological choice. From this point of view he engaged in debate with intellectuals
who proclaimed other epistemological points of view.
Tafuri’s work symbolizes an important passage in twentieth-century intellectual history.
From the middle of the 1970s and certainly after the publication of La Sfera e il Labirinto
and the essay Il Progetto Storico in 1980, his work can be labelled as poststructuralist.
With his stress on the endless, ongoing character of historical research, his conception of
‘ricerca terminabile interminabile’, Tafuri proved himself to be an important representative
of poststructuralist historiography. Where for modernists a meaningful historical account
was able to put an end to research by providing an explanation that was so exhaustive and
convincing that others were made redundant, poststructuralist or ‘postmodernist’ thinkers
argued that the only ‘true’ facts were the debatable facts.2 Poststructuralist intellectuals
recognized the law of the multiplication of information: the importance of information
should not be measured by its ability to complete an information process, but rather by its
ability to be a creative and productive element within the process; by its ability to create
for ‘posterity’.
Striking in this respect is the dominance of the theme of the plurality of languages in
Tafuri’s essay Il Progetto Storico. Here Tafuri confronts the language of the historian with
that spoken by the architectural object. He allows them to clash, fuse and fragment into a
myriad of linguistic fragments. This is symptomatic of the poststructuralist insight that
scientific language is no longer a mirror of nature, but ‘just as much part of the inventory
of reality as the objects in reality which science studies.’3 Tafuri portrays architectural
history as the outcome of a clash between the ‘language’ of the historian and that of the
object of study. The discourse of the historian is not about reality, it is situated within
reality and forms an object among other objects. The first pages of Il Progetto Storico
2
My explanation of poststructuralism in history is based on: F.R. Ankersmit, ‘Historiography and Postmodernism’,
in B. Fag et al., ed., History and Theory, Contemporary Readings, Oxford, 1998, pp. 173-223.
3 Ibid., p. 181.
4 This was formulated by Hans Bertens during a Dutch conference on postmodernism and was quoted by Ankersmit
in his essay, ibid., p. 181.
207
illustrate this poststructuralist insight that language, as used in science, is a thing,
while things in reality acquire a ‘language-like’ nature.4
For an architectural historian, the choice of poststructuralism was remarkable. In Tafuri’s
case, it led to strange encounters in which he studied the symbols of modernism –
a white cubist house with a flat roof, for example – from a poststructuralist point of view.
The poststructuralist character of Tafuri’s history writing becomes most clear in his
interest in Freud. Tafuri started to conceive of architectural history as a tracing of signs.
As part of his ambition to turn architectural history into an independent and critical discipline, he looked for what the architect did not say, or only whispered, or what the architect
said in a slip of the tongue.
As Ankersmit confirms in his essay, a result of this strategy was that it emphasized that
the events that the historian focuses on will always be interpreted within the context of
the present time. History is always made in the here and now: it is the destinataire who
decides the content of history, depending on his or her ability to manage the traces of the
past and give them a satisfactory interpretation. For Tafuri, this ‘psycho-history’ was a part
of his attempt to overcome the historicist, linear, idealist history in his own country.
Referring to Walter Benjamin, he claimed that the past had to be reread from the position
of a clear concern for the present, all the while trying to read the past in terms of the
dramatic moment in which events produce the ephemeral spark of their own brief
present. The way in which the object of investigation is chosen, composed, represented
or even misrepresented, makes a difference.5
Tafuri interpreted the traces and signs of the architectural past, but he did not think he
could have direct access to the past. For Tafuri, there was no truth in historiography, as the
past is forever beyond our reach: the past could not serve as a source of the validation of
the correctness or incorrectness of historical discourse. Tafuri studied the traces left
behind by the past in the present; he interpreted them and projected patterns upon them,
but he did not believe that he could gain access to historical reality through the traces.
Tafuri’s historical writing in works such as Ricerca del Rinascimento (1992) was strictly
nominalistic.
Tafuri’s own struggle with the Venetian critique of ideology may be viewed as indicative
of the passage from structuralism to poststructuralism in the Venetian department of
architectural history. Behind the attempt to subject architecture to the critique of ideology
there was still the ambition to know ‘how the machine works’. Tafuri and his colleagues
saw architectural ideology as a means of penetrating into capitalist reality. They not only
projected patterns upon the traces of the past, but they also searched for something
behind those traces. However, after their recognition that reality was discursive by nature,
consisting of many languages, ideologies and texts, their world view became more
‘horizontal’, focusing on the confrontation between the texts of the historian and other
texts that forge our world.
5
Patrizia Lombardo, ‘Introduction: The Philosophy of the City’, in Mark Rakatansky ed., Architecture and Nihilism:
On the Philosophy of Modern Architecture, New Haven, 1993, pp. 37-38.
208
The scholars from Venice – Tafuri, Cacciari and their colleagues within the department
of architectural history – developed a conception of history consisting of two elements:
on the one hand there was a plurality of fragments, and on the other there was the
absolute nothing. They considered fragments to be engaged in an intense dialogue with
each other while the nothing remained mute. The nothing at the centre consisted of an
absolute silence, of a core that was impregnable and, like a Kantian noumenon,
inaccessible.
For Tafuri, reality was made up of a plurality of institutions, discourses, architecturalideological systems and political decisions. Knowledge about this reality could be achieved
by establishing relations between these elements, but the construction that is then
created did not reflect a sacrosanct truth. It was determined by contingent needs and
interests and it depended on what was perceived as being relevant at that time. However,
all these strategies circled around the nothing, the silent core in which meaning could not
be named or grasped through words or reflection. As Tafuri and Cacciari stated, ‘history
has a hole in the middle’. However, they argued that despite the impregnable character of
the centre it is the task of the historian nevertheless to say something about its silence,
to try and denominate its effect. This can only be described as the improbus labor of an
impossible mission.
The impossibility of this mission is indicative of the impossibility of any epistemological
mission: the unfeasibility of touching the silence, and the impotence of any attempt to
name the truth. Tafuri and Cacciari now saw that their task was to demonstrate the ‘false’
character of past attempts to develop epistemological structures – to remove their masks
of absolute certainty and authority. This was the nihilistic approach to the bottomless
abyss: in the end there was no truth, only the genealogy of meaning which is endless and
without foundation in the past or future. Only by developing a sensibility for the abyss
could a spark of the silent centre be experienced. The scholars from Venice now defined
their epistemological strategies around the silent centre as a dispositivo: an interpretational instrument, a device in the hands of those who, like a negative plate in photography,
rendered present something of the relationship with the silence.
209
ORAL HISTORY
A LECTURE IN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY BY MANFREDO TAFURI
➛ ....perché ognuno di coloro che va partire questi giovani, che sono più impegnati a
questo momento nell’Italia.....E quindi c’e qualche modalità filosofica, in qualche profonda lezione, ad un realtà in movimento...E quindi è estremamente importante potere, grado a grado, entrare...in violenta realtà...1
➛ .....because each of those people that try to launch these youngsters, that are
among the most engaged at this moment in Italy....And so there is a certain philosophical modality, a profound lesson, for a dynamic reality....And so it is extremely important to be able, step by step, to enter...in a violent reality...
These words were spoken by the director of the I.U.A.V. Giuseppe Samonà (1898 –1983),
as part of the introduction to a seminar that was organised by him in the spring of 1966.
This seminar was called Teoria della progettazione architettonica; it had a modest diffusion
in Italy through an accompanying book with the same title.2 The seminar consisted of a
series of guest lectures given by eight young architect-intellectuals, who each tried to
come to a theoretical reflection upon the process of architectural design. For example,
the architect Luciano Semerani gave a lesson called ‘Rationality of architectural design’,
and Alberto Samonà spoke of ‘The problems of design for the city, the scales of design
and the unity of method.’ The challenge of the seminar was to read the process of
architectural design as part of a wider social horizon and then to investigate a possible
analogy between the coming about of a theory and the coming about of architectural
design. As Giuseppe Samonà wrote in the introduction of the book, he wanted to
question the ‘constitutive ideas’ from which an architectural project arises; its spiritual,
idealistic and social context that in the end determines its form and content. The key-term
was ‘parametri di controllo’, ‘parameters of control’: following the procedure of scientific
theory, it was Samonà’s aim to formalise the chemistry between external influences and
internal design into a methodology, a theory of architectural design. However, the first of
the speakers was a young Manfredo Tafuri who took the opportunity to present his own
agenda. In the company of erudite and cogent architect-intellectuals, Tafuri for the first
time decided to speak as a professional architectural historian, presenting a
1 Venezia, Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia, Archivio Progetti, Lezione Prof. Tafuri, ag. 072 000, CD no
1: Prima lezione, prima parte, Introduzione prof. Samonà. English translation by author. Further referred to as: Archivio
Progetti, Lezione Prof. Tafuri. I thank Riccardo Domenichini from the IUAV’s Archivio Progetti for giving me the permission to include this lecture in my disseration.
2 Giuseppe Samonà (ed.), Teoria della progettazione architettonica, Bari 1968. Contributions by: Manfredo Tafuri,
‘Le strutture del linguaggio nella storia dell’architettura moderna’, pp.11-31, Gabriele Scimeni, ‘Il ruolo delle teorie
nell’urbanistica’, pp. 31-51, Mario Coppa, ‘Il modulo nella storia degli insediamenti urbani e rurali - Tramonto di un
mito. Componenti italiche nella cultura urbanistica.’ , pp. 51-67, Luciano Semerani, ‘Razionabilità della progettazione
architettonica’, pp. 67-83, Guido Canella, ‘Dal laboratorio della composizione’, pp. 83-101, Alberto Samonà, ‘I problemi
della progettazione per la città, Le scale di progettazione e la unità del metodo’, pp. 101-121, Aldo Rossi, ‘Architettura
per i musei’, pp. 121-139, Vittorio Gregotti, ‘I materiali della progettazione’ , pp. 139-163.
210
‘historical-critical perspective’.3 Tafuri did not offer theoretical reflections that could be
forged into a methodology, but projected the concept of ‘parametri di controllo’ into
history. For Tafuri, this theme was intimately connected to the history of modern
architecture as it had started in the Renaissance, giving rise to a series of problems from
this date onwards.
As the reader may have noticed by now, at the end of this dissertation, I propose a
special way to look at Tafuri. What I intend to do in the following supplement, is to add to
Tafuri’s published lecture ‘Le strutture del linguaggio nella storia dell’architettura moderna’
, a report of the oral lecture that he gave during the seminar. After more then thirty years,
what remains from the seminar ‘Teoria della progettazione architettonica’ are the texts
which are assembled in the accompanying volume. However, these texts can not be
considered as faithful records of what is said during the seminar: they are, in point of fact,
elaboration’s after the fact, written reformulations of the lecturesg. In the Archivio
Progetti of the I.U.A.V. I have found the original recordings of Tafuri’s lecture, which are
recorded today on eight CD Roms. The lecture gives an unique image of the work that he
was engaged in, and of the debates and the questions that puzzled him. The richness of
this presentation can not be found in the publication, which in comparison appears as
already a reduction.
In the following document I have transcribed a part of the oral lecture that Tafuri gave for
the seminar ‘Teoria della Progettazione Architettonica’, held during the winter and the
spring of 1966. Today, the oral records of this lecture can be found in the Archivio Progetti
of the I.U.A.V., where the original audio tapes have been transmitted on CD.
Unfortunately, at times the quality of the sound was not very good, resulting in the fact
that I have not been able to understand all words and phrases correctly. Where I have my
doubts, I have indicated this in the text with a: (.....) The oral text presented here consists
of two parts: the lecture itself and the discussion that followed afterwards. For reasons of
space, I have made a selection of both parts, containing the first part of the lecture and
the last part of the discussion. In this part, Tafuri discusses his reasons to question the
practices of ‘operative history’. In a series of notes, I have accentuated the crucial parts of
this lecture.
With this last part of my thesis, I want to break with the pattern of endless exegesis of
difficult texts.Tafuri belongs to the intellectual history of the discipline of architectural
history: this history should not only be studied on the basis of finished products, but also
from the point of view of its processes of formation, in a certain sense ‘history from
below’
3
See: Tomas Llorens, ‘Manfredo Tafuri: Neo-Avant-garde and History’, p.84, Architectural Design Profile On the Methodology of Architectural History, 51, 1981, pp. 83-95.
211
Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia
Archivio Progetti
Lezione prof. Tafuri
Prima lezione, prima parte, nr.1.
Durata: 64:00
Ag. 072 000
Inverno/primavera 1966
MANFREDO TAFURI
‘Io oggi, riguardo più specificamente il problema dei metodi ; il controllo, nella storia della
progettazione moderna. Dobbiamo innanzitutto definire quindi, i termini. Cosa intendiamo
per metodi di controllo? E cosa intendiamo anche, per architettura moderna?
Per metodi di controllo, possiamo considerare tre categorie emergenti (…). Il distinguersi,
dello metodo di controllo, come struttura determinante, di un modo di progettare, e un
modo di vedere il mondo attraverso l’occhio descrittivo del architetto, come distinta dal
concetto di poetica , la quale è anch’essa una struttura, e anch’essa più spesso la
struttura di un epoca, più che la struttura di una singola individualità creatrice, ma che è
proprio il termine di passante, da una generalizzato metodo di controllo, e la espressione
individuale e singole. E resta quindi una differenziazione, una prima differenziazione, che
possiamo porre fra questi due generalizzazione, che riguardano appunto, il problema del
controllo di essere un problema di un innesto di tradizioni culturali , di innovazioni culturali
, di crisi spirituali, in una operazione, e so che permette, direi anzi, il passaggio da una ben
presagio visione del mondo, al operazione di costruzione di un nuovo mondo, di una nuova
realtà, come quella che compie sempre l’architetto.1
Ma, dobbiamo anche decidere, cosa intendiamo per architettura moderna. Usiamo il
termine ‘architettura moderna’ in una accezione estremamente ampio. L’architettura
moderna possiamo farla nascere, in maniera estremamente grossa, con l’ Umanesimo,
con la definitiva crisi del mondo Gotico. È infatti, proprio in quel momento che avviene una
frattura profondissima nella storia della civiltà Europea e del modo Europea di
costruire le proprie realtà. Che tipo di controllo aveva infatti l’architetto Gotico?
L’architetto Gotico non concepisce una struttura poetica-figurativa separata, divisa da una
prassi e nello stesso tempo da una teoria nella quale egli si sente profondamente inserito,
ma sulla quale egli non incide affatto. Come ben sapete, in una cattedrale gotico, non
nasce dalla tutto, come frutto di una particolare visione del mondo propria all’architettura.
La cattedrale gotica nasce sotto l’ordine di particolari libretti tramandati dagli abbati,
appositamente li, appositamente la, come quella del abbate Suger per l’edificazione di
1 This is for Tafuri the most characteristic aspect of the modern architect: the modern architect wants to construct
a new world, a new reality. This is his project, his most authentic pursuit. The modern architect doesn’t express
the Weltanschauung that is current in his time, but he creates his own Weltanschauung. He is himself an actor, a
provider of meaning. The parameters of control are a set of devices, a set of very particular, subjective rules, which
the architect uses to charge his architecture with meaning, with a semantic content. It is also here, in the problem of
the parameters of control, that the problem of modern architecture resides for Tafuri.
212
Saint Denis,….e altri ancora, ci mostra. L’architetto si trova di fronte ad un libretto,
che esige da lui un modo di concepire lo spazio, un modo di porre il problema della
narrazione plastica-figurativa, all’interno di questo spazio, e si muove con tutta la sua
esperienza costruttiva in perfetta o quasi unione con questo tipo di mondo. Ad un spazio
gotico, che altro non è che una manifestatio di una scolastica concezione del mondo,
ma più che altro della trascendenza, che si rivela al mondo attraverso lo spazio. Da questo
tipo di concezione si passa a quella del dialetticità all’ interna dell’ architettura gotica,
ma della quale il problema del controllo è quasi sempre una problema che è
completamente inserito, non si riesce a separare, quasi aparte da ciò che appunto è
l’immagine del linguaggio figurativo vero e proprio. Abbiamo, è vero, tutt’ un complesso
davvero studiato, di norme proporzionale , di norme aritmetico armoniche, le quali
segnalano ancora una persistenza della filosofia platonica nel mondo medievale
scholastico, individuano ancora un mediatore scolastico, ma ben sappiamo che la loro incidenza è estremamente relativa, quasi estrinseca all’ occhio della progettazione vera e
propria.
Il salto che si compie, fra questo modo di concepire l’architettura, al nuovo prodotto
degli architetti dell’Umanesimo, è completa, è una vera e propria rivoluzione.2 Il problema
dei metodi di controllo nasce direi esplicitamente con l’architettura dell’Umanesimo.
E nasce impostando il problema del controllo su tre grandi filoni principali. Il primo fra
quali, potremo dire, è quello della formazione di un concetto generalizzante di forma.3
Cos’è una forma? La forma è sempre rappresentazione di un contenuto già dato, di un
qualche cosa che è ricompiuto come trascendente, e gli spazi, quindi il concetto di forma
2 This is one of the most conspicuous aspects of Tafuri’s analysis of modern architecture: according to Tafuri, the
revolution of modern architecture started already with the rise of Tuscan Humanist culture in the 15th century, for
which architects like Brunelleschi and Alberti are exemplary. In the book Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, Tafuri takes
a provocative stance in the confused debate about the historicity or anti-historicity of the Modern Movement. He
states that the anti-historicity of the artistic avant-gardes at the beginning of the 20th century is actually a historical
phenomenon, something with a clear precedent in history. In this respect, so states Tafuri, that Brunelleschi should
be seen as the first modern avant-garde architect in history. This anomalic view becomes more understandable if we
take into account, what according to Tafuri belongs to the essence of modernity. The essence of modernity is for Tafuri
closely related to two phenomena: fragmentation and “operativity”. What distinguishes architecture from the modern
era from that of the pre-modern era is its possibility to signify and become meaningful. Architecture becomes a means
of representation, a producer of a certain Weltanschauung. In order to signify, architecture now has to invent its own
rational laws: the process of architectural design is now conceived of as a structure, a system, a code. However, since
this representation is always a representation made for the here and now ; something that has to work at this moment,
a meaningful modern architecture is inherently an operative architecture. And with its operativity, the fragmentation
of architectural history is also a given. In their quest for signification, modern architects are always in dialogue with
history. But as their eyes are dictated by the concerns of the present, they will look in history for those pieces which
suit them. History dissolves into a series of fragments that are extracted from their proper setting: the precise choice
of fragments will always be subjective and arbitrary, as there are always more systems of signification working next
to each other. History is treated like a warehouse that is plundered for subjective motives. In the modern era, says
Tafuri, history thus becomes de-historicised. Manfredo Tafuri, Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, Bari 1968, chapter 1:
‘L’architettura moderna e l’eclissi della storia’.
3 All Italics in this text are applied by author.
213
umanistico-rinascimentale, corrisponde ad un contenuto trascendente, che è un
realizzarsi/legarsi (..) ad un spazio dell’ attività umana, che infatti ben sappiamo che
questa, che è la forma euristica, è una forma che si inserisce nel mondo per costruirlo,
ed è ancora qualcosa che si dà con assolutezza, in cui la perfezione immediata della cosa
è qualcosa che non sempre è essenziale, molto spesso può essere una tendenza da
considerare secondaria. E nasce qui il secondo grande parametro di controllo dell’
architettura umanista, l’unicità dello spazio, che viene testimoniata non come norme d’uso
di esse, da tutta la trattatistica di tipo euclideo , ma corrisponde, effetivamente, ad un
particolare poetica dello spazio, ad una particolare concezione della costruttività e della
strutturalità dello spazio della civiltà. Cosa intendiamo per costruttività e strutturalità di
questo spazio unico? Unicità dello spazio significhi principalmente unicità , univocità della
situazione dell’uomo nell’universo. Significa principalmente l’intento di produrre degli
parametri, simbolici ad esempio, all’interno di una cultura architettonica per far
corrispondere alla situazione dell’ uomo nell’ambiente architettonica, la stessa situazione
che l’uomo assume nei confronti dell’ universum. Unicità dello spazio, progresso nel
tempo, significa sempre espressione, ma più che altro costruzione di una forma simbolica,
nella quale viene paragonato (..) l’intera concezione, laica questa volta, o perlomeno
tendenzialmente laica in quanto far corrispondere a questo spazio pensato, a questo
spazio di natura speculativo, lo spazio della scena architettonica, o perlomeno, di questa
laicità è contenuta nelle opere delle Brunelleschi, e si estingue man mano nel procedere
del corso dell’architettura umanistica. Ma, a questi parametri, di tipo simboliche, se ne
compongono altre due. Se lo spazio è univoco, bisogna poter esprimere questa univocità
e costruire questa univocità , in modo tale che, non vi possono assorgere equivoci alcuni,
rispetto al contenuto di questa univocità. Bisogna anche l’uomo che vive nello spazio,
dove restiamo nello spazio centrato del Rinascimento, si riconosca in una situazione, in cui
invece lo spazio è posseduto da lui, porta attualmente un spazio virtualmente costruibile.
Da un lato quindi infinità dello spazio, dall’ altra appunto unicità dello spazio e sua perfetta
misurabilità.
Terzo parametro, come di controllo di progettazione diretto, dell’architetto è appunto la
prospettiva. E pur accendendo, in buona parte, al concetto di prospettiva come forma
simbolica prodotta da Panofsky, possiamo riconoscere in questo metodo che non è a fatto
un metodo di rappresentazione nello spazio reale, ma il metodo di trasformazione dello
spazio dell’ambiente, e spiegheremo poi il perché, in questo metodo dicevo, si realizzano
appunto,i due, apparentemente opposte, strutture della cultura architettonica
rinascimentale. Il punto di fuga, nella quale si concentrano tutte le lignee prospettiche,
della intersezione (…) visiva, è infatti un punto, quindi, qualcosa di perfettamente
costruibile, di perfettamente rappresentabile architettonico, qualcosa che si può
possedere. Ma nello stesso tempo, proprio in quanto punto, è virtualmente definito,
è infatti, corrisponde ad una unga all’infinita. Ma non solo, l’intera concezione, l’intera
costruzione infatti, intuita la misurabilità di ogni punto, all’interno della prospettiva medesimo. E la prospettiva è una prospettiva chiara, è appunto, il rigore sin dal inizio del discorso
del Panofsky, che dimostra in che modo quel spazio, questa misurabilità, questa
unicità del punto di fuga corrispondente ad questa immagine simbolica dell’ univocità
della spazio, siano astrazioni, astrazioni costruttive, norme rappresentative, in quanto se si
mette a confronto questa concezione di prospettiva con la concezione della prospettiva
presso gli Antichi, che concepivano una prospettiva con piano curvo, con più punti di fuga,
214
e più possibilità di misurabilità su asse di combinazione (..). Potremo benissimo costatare
che la prospettiva tanto antica, come studiata da Panofsky, è in fondo più reale , la visione,
alla visione prospettiva di quanto non sia lo spazio prospettico rinascimentale. Ecco quindi
che, purtroppo, lo spazio prospettiche, con questa particolarissima concezione di
prospettica, che accentua, non delle carattere strumentata di questo strumento di
controllo , bensì il suo carattere creativo-costruttivo, è appunto , una specificità linguistica,
nello stesso tempo strutturale, dello spazio rinascimentale.4 Abbiamo un elemento linguistica, la prospettiva appunto, che prescinde da particolare esigenze figurativi- espressivi, ma nello stesso tempo profondamente inserito in una particolarissima visione del
mondo, a dimostrare la non-obiettività dei parametri di controllo nel operazione architettonico, la loro profondo inserimento in una concezione particolarissimo nella quale essi
hanno naturalmente un posto speciale, ma che possono anche essere sconcertante. E
vedremo come. Con la cultura manierista, inizia una sistematica contestazione, all’interno
di questa sistema.. Ma unito a questo parametro di controllo, la cultura rinascimentale ne
ha un’altra, fondamentale , anche questo di tipo simbolico: quello che riguarda le proporzioni armonico-matematiche. È, in questo caso giusto, una catalizzazione di quella che
è stata la teoria proporzionale nella la cultura medievale. Conosciamo molto bene, anche
perché la traduzione italiana del Wittkower lo ha diffuso, il trattato memoriale di Francesco
Zorzi come correzione della chiesa di Sansovino a Venezia, in cui una problema dei proporzioni matematiche viene posto in primo piano in modo direi chiarissimo. Dice lo Zorzi,
che cosa sono i rapporti platonici, i rapporti uno-due, tre-quarto; nient’altro, dice lo Zorzi,
che i corrispondenti delle scale armoniche, delle scale musicale, dell’armonia musicale,
alle intervalli di uno-due, due-tre, tre-quarto, secondo i quali , secondo questi numeri
semplice, quindi perfettamente razionabile, lo Zorzi corregge la pianta di S. Francesco
delle Vigne sistemando appunto secondo rapporto di larghezza, profondità e altezza
corrispondenti a queste relazioni. Abbiamo gli intervalli di quinta di ottava di diapente e
tutti gli altri rapporti matematici che corrispondono ad una filosofia ben precisa , una
concezione ben precisa, dell’ armonia universale. È in fondo l’armonia dell’universo che si
rispecchia nella figura umana e da questa figura umana deformata anch’essa, nello stesso
modo di come la cultura rinascimentale deforma lo spazio univoco e prospettico, da
questa figura umana preso come modello, di questo microcosmo che rispecchia il
macrocosmo universale, si possono trarre queste relazioni che sono architettoniche, (...)
perché appunto non hanno in se stesse, nient’ altro che non rispecchia quest’ armonia
cosmologica, si possono indicare degli spunti perfettamente controllabile, perfettamente
razionalizzabile, conoscibile attraverso un’operazione intellettuale, più che visivopercettiva, più che istinte, nella quale l’uomo del Rinascimento riesce a ritrovare quella
corrispondenza, tra questo spazio, tra questa sua posizione nello spazio e una concezione
trascendente dello spazio stesso.
4 The
word ‘language’ is a key-term which Tafuri uses in relation to modern architecture. Architecture becomes a ‘
language’ at this point, when it becomes the carrier of a very particular system of meaning. Instead of being an artisanal activity, architecture now becomes rational and speculative of nature. As bearer of meaning, architecture has the
unique possibility to assume symbolical dimensions, to evoke that which is not immediately present. However, since
architecture always functions in a contrasting reality full of tensions, the ‘rational’ architects strive to secure their
approach by elevating it to the norm, by elevating their ‘just’ approach of architecture to the status of an
‘institution’.
215
Abbiamo quindi, abbiamo metodi estremamente trascinante di controllo della progettazione. L’ordine architettonico, la poetica che si può anche ridefinire nella area trattatistica
di tipo Vitruviano, ha un senso alla luce della concezione simboliche degli rapporti armonici-universale. Anche la colonna con l’intero ordine corrisponde, nelle sue parte, nelle sue
proporzione, alla figura umana, al senso che ha la figura umana all’interno dello spazio.
E questo univocità dello spazio si estende anche alla concezione della città, nei trattati di
Filerete ci mostra in parte, molto di più che quelli di Francesco di Giorgio Martini, univocità
dello spazio architettoniche si estende in maniera più differenziata allo spazio architettonico della città. Abbiamo una trasposizione , una traslazione dei termini del architettura alla
città, una univocità di metodo, una univocità di parametri di controllo. E direi che il primo
scossa dell’ architettura rinascimentale avviene proprio sul termine della città. È infatti la
città , con la sua fenomenologia così poco controllabile, attraverso una univoca operazione
di tipo razionale, che si rivela allo spazio rinascimentale.(....) Non esiste più questa città in
cui l’unicità dello spazio come parametro di controllo progettuale corrisponde ad una
razionalità , (…) Non sarà più quella imposizione di una razionalità per tutti, come simbolo
di una volontà di razionalizzazione, non sarà più il sogno dell’Umanesimo Toscana,
di fusione dello stesso atto di contenuti speculativi e di operazione contingente, di
operosità.5 Sarà invece piuttosto, ancora una concezione univoca dello spazio. Saranno
ancora concezioni simboliche e aritmetico-proporzionali, o armoniche-musicale che
vivranno nella progettazione , ma ormai come modelli esauriti. Come concetto di forma,
come forma universale corrispondente in modo estremamente preciso ad una universalità
immanente, la forma comincia a spezzare.
Quella cultura fondamentale, tutti quanti i parametri di controllo che abbiamo enumerati
i nomi della cultura umanistica che è la fusione un po’ di tecnologia, di scienze,
di filosofie come contenuto speculative, viene ad avere una prima profonda scissione, che
ad un tempo, rassomiglia molto a quella più fondamentale, finale scissione che si
verificherà tra contenuti speculativi e l’architettura, contenuti tecnologici e l’architettura
stessa, nel tardo diciasettesimo secolo e si prolungherà per molto tempo, con la (...)
scissione tra architettura e l’ingegneria . Appunto (....) nel secondo Settecento, che avviene questa scissione.6 E almeno non casualmente proprio, sul tema del analisi contenuto5 This is for Tafuri the main characteristic of Tuscan Humanist architecture. This architecture still departs from a unity
between itself and the surrounding world: the formal choices of the architect are determined by the “truths” of the
universal laws of the cosmos. There is in this way, says Tafuri, a continuity between natural space and built space, as
Humanist architecture postulates a radical identification between knowing and acting. In the essay “Le strutture del
linguaggio nella storia dell’architettura moderna”, Tafuri dedicates one of the most difficult phrases to this insight.
See page 14: ‘Se si postula, infatti, che la continuità fra spazio naturale e spazio costruito.....in cui si era dissolto il
naturalismo gotico’.
6 This is an important point in Tafuri’s analysis. He locates a crisis in the course of modern architecture, of which he
speaks in terms of a ‘scissione’: a schism, a division, a falling apart of what was once united. What Tafuri means by
this, is the growing apart of architectural form and speculative contents, by which architecture’s capacity to signify is
seriously threatened. This crisis of modern architecture, which is a crisis of meaning, takes place over two principal
moments. Following certain intellectual traditions that see the rise of Humanist culture in the 16th century as the
start of modernity, Tafuri duplicates the crisis of modern architecture. He points to a first moment of crisis within
the postulates of a Humanist-rational culture, and a second, even more fundamental crisis that occurs during the
Enlightenment.
216
forma. Come si controlla una progettazione, se non (..) con questa fede nella valore
simbolica, per esempio, del univocità dello spazio: si comincierà ad contestarlo e si potrà
contestare trasformando (….) Michelangelo nella Laurenziana per esempio, o ancor più
evidente, nei progetti di fortificazione di Firenze, non abbiamo più uno spazio a priori come
forma, che si sovrapponga allo spazio, ma la forma si determina attraverso una serie di atti
(...) e che tengono conto della fenomenologia continue e che più vengono compromessa
con questa fenomenologia: potranno deformarsi questi spazi, potranno frantumarsi in una
colonna di spazie ed ecco, nella trattatistica e disegni ed anche in qualche opere, viene
contestata il perfetta centralità dello spazio ottagonale, sistemi triangolare, circolari, attraverso una presentazione di una colonna di spazi estremamente differenziati, rettangolari e circolari, al interno dello spazio unico, come può significare che non si può per caso
staccarsi da questo parametro di progettazione, ma nello stesso tempo, si può contestare,
si si può ribellare , evidentemente, ad essi, come immanente all’ interno di questo spazio
unico.7 E anche per la prospettiva, secondo parametro che abbiamo esaminati, accade lo
stesso fenomeno. In alcuni disegni per esempio, del Montana, noi cominciamo a vedere,
spazi prospettici illusivi, che guarda la cultura nordica d’Italia, ….in cui questa norma, in cui
questo modo di concepire il controllo diretto della progettazione, comincia ad divenire una
norma estrinseca. È ancora un parametro, ed è ancora un modo di controllo, ma un modo
di controllo che può essere soggetto ad una rappresentazione. Tanto è vero , che quando
ricominciamo a vedere in questi spazi deformati , queste false prospettive, che poi
passeranno , con ben altri contenuti, al mondo barocco, dobbiamo costatare che questa
concezione non-strutturale dello spazio prospettiche, è una contestazione del strumento
prospettico come strumento di conoscenza del mondo. Diventa, questo spazio che era,
unica, questa prospettiva come volontà di conoscenza, diventa oggetto di una rappresentazione del mondo. È il salto che si compie, fra cultura rinascimentale-manierista e cultura
barocca , è proprio in questo fondamentale passo. Dal concetto di forma come parametro
di controllo universale, si passa quasi direttamente, dopo la rivoluzione, la frantumazione,
la contestazione manierista, al concetto di immagine. Il quale è ancora certa un parametro
di controllo, ma un parametro di controllo soggetto a molti fattori che contribuiranno ad
una definitiva crisi. Qual è la differenza tra forma ed immagine? Una forma, è qualcosa che
corrisponde ad una rappresentazione di tratti di tipo universale. Una immagine può anche
assumere quelli tratti, ma mescolandoli, trasformandoli, in una concezione nella quale il
problema non è tanto quello di esprimere, o di rappresentare, o di costruire attraverso
quella, rappresentazione simbolica di concetti trascendenti : l’immagine è qualcosa che è
soggetta alla trasparenza della autobiografia, è soggetta alla trasparenza dei contenuti
emozionali, è qualche cosa che entra nella produzione del mondo, proponendosi come un
valore autonomo , che obbliga sempre ad altri valori, che sono al di fuori di essi.8 La differenza fra il Santo Spirito di Brunelleschi e il San Carlino di Borromini, è in buona parte in
questa volontà, che nella prima opera di costruire uno spazio-ambiente che corrisponde a
7 This sentence is indicative for the way in which Tafuri analyses the crisis of modern architecture. When the canon
of the Humanists starts to dissolve, it is not so that its place is immediately taken by another type of culture. In other
words: thesis is not followed by antithesis. Instead, what happens is that the Humanist canon is weakenend from
inside by the company of other phenomena. It is in this sense that Tafuri speaks of subversive elements, of elements
of protest. Also when Tafuri speaks of the culture of the image, he stresses that this concepts consists of a mixture of
both form and image, as a dangerous coexistence of both elements.
217
questa universalità di valori, mentre nel secondo, quella universalità di valori è passata al
valido di questo autobiografia, che può anche contestarne in parti, alcuni valori, che proprio può cedere a un scavo sistematico nel senso di questi valori stessi, e poi restituisce
al osservatore, un qualche cosa , che è sempre di meno universalmente una rappresentazione e sempre di più si pone come qualcosa di autonomo, come un fenomeno che
entra nel mondo, in serie ad altri fenomeni, contrandosi con altri fenomeni, proprio come
accadrà alla città barocca.9 La città barocca, la quale accetta praticamente, lo scasso che
nelle teorie rinascimentale aveva subito al confronto con la città , che accetta , senza teorizzarsi sopra, questa fenomenologia della città stessa, che accetta anche un cambiato
rapporto tra l’uomo e la natura, e quindi, tra quel opera essenzialmente anti-naturalista che
è la città , in quanto costruzione completamente indipendente dalle prime trattatistiche, da
parte dell’uomo e la natura, la quale è qualche cosa, che mentre quindi veniva riassunta
proprio in una rappresentazione simbolica nel architettura, ora diviene la realtà estinte (..)
con la quale comunque confrontarsi.
Si potrà riassumere la natura nella città, rappresentandola scenograficamente, si potrà
fondere natura e città in frammenti urbani isolati, come nelle grande biblioteche settecentesche in Italia e nell’Europa, ma la natura come tale non entra più come parametro
simbolico del controllo dell’architettura. In una parola, possiamo dire che avvenuto un
stacco profondo che univa parametri di controllo da sistemi diretti e sistemi indiretti, fatto,
in quanto tutta la teoria delle norme proporzionali rinascimentale, tutta la concezione della
prospettiva come simbolo universale, è evidentemente un modo di concepire il parametro
di controllo progettuale come qualcosa di indiretto, come qualcosa di spostabile alle poet-
8 Tafuri
indicates the same process when he speaks about the passage from form to image and about the passage
from direct to indirect parameters. What changes during this passage, is that architecture conceives of its task to
represent in a fundamentally different way. Indirect parameters refer to a canon of universal, transcendent concepts,
which are evoked through the symbolical powers of architecture. However, what changes during the passage from
‘indirect’ to ‘direct’, is that the values that are represented by architecture no longer have a transcendent nature, but
belong to this world, to the here and now. Even more, when Tafuri speaks of the ‘transparency of the autobiography’,
he indicates a fundamental entrance of subjectivity into the architectural world. A certain view of the world will now
function next to other views: representation is from now on always a plural act.
9 Also the essay that Tafuri wrote as a further elaboration of this essay, ‘Le strutture del linguaggio nella storia dell’architettura moderna’, circles around these two dialectical poles. On the one side, we have empirical and experimental
tendencies, exemplified by for instance Leonardo da Vinci. Tafuri speaks of these tendencies in terms of ‘immediate
communication’ and ‘infinite deformation’, as an extreme capacity to be flexible in different circumstances. On the
other side, there is the idealist culture of the Tuscan Humanists, of which Tafuri speaks as a ‘clinging on to the ideal
type’ precisely in view of the threat represented by the uncontrolled proliferation of ‘images’ - read: the empirical tendencies in architecture. In this respect, it is important to mention that Tafuri was reading Nietzsche while preparing
this lecture. Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Le strutture del linguaggio nella storia dell’architettura moderna’. In the book Teorie e
Storia, the focus has changed, under influence of other important intellectuals that Tafuri was reading. Influenced by
the work of the Marquis de Sade, Tafuri now conceives of this dialectical tension in a sadistic way. He thus speaks of
a Humanist culture that is baited by the temptation - repressed but constantly re-emerging- to smirch oneself with
the many medieval and gothic images. Manfredo Tafuri, Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, chapter 1: ‘L’architettura
moderna e l’eclissi della storia’. Note also how the dialectical tension is now placed by Tafuri inside the Humanist
culture, as a devilish seduction to search for one’s own antithesis.
218
iche rappresentative quando operazione concreta, come invece la poetiche dell’immagine,
architettoniche, dell’immagine figurative, è invece una accettazione delle possibilità che
appunto nascono nell’architettura, di accettare dei parametri di controllo che sono
diretti , che quindi corrispondono ai poetiche particolare, e non da caso per esempio che
quasi l’intera trattatistica di epoca barocca non sia più una trattatistica di tipo prescrittivo,
che pretende di dare norme universale alla progettazione, ma è piuttosto una trattatistica
la quale presenta poetiche particolare. Le opere architettoniche di Borromini, come il
trattato di Guarini (..), anche se insistano , in campo dell’arte, sulla meccanica, sulla
geometria delle ordine, in realtà presentano le opere degli autori proponendo le proprie
come immagine, che possono essere tramandate in qualche parte, su cui si può crescere
un avventura figurativa, indipendentemente da valori universaliste, che questa cultura
figurativa ancora può mantenere, come frammento, o come margine. È, naturalmente,
un mondo in quale la buccia può trasformare in maniera così fitta, i propri parametri di
controllo operativi, evidentemente, addirà ad una crisi. La crisi si manifesta proprio quando
da questa trasformazione dei parametri di controllo si arriva alla assenza della loro
trasformazione (..), quando questa frantumarsi, questo in fondo eliminare il problema di
parametro di controllo nel caso (…) dell’architettura Settecentesco Europeo, corrisponde
una coscienza tormentata della crisi, che si sta… E allora, è quasi fatale, il tornare, ad una
concezione, la quale infonde di nuovo, parametri di controllo indiretti, come accadrà all’
architettura dei illuministi.10 L’architettura dell’Illuminismo, proprio nel suo voler salvare
una dignità, una istituzionalità, direi una auto-revolezza, al segno linguistico architettonico,
riproduce, di nuovo, parametri di controllo indiretti. Un indole però, e questo direi è
fondamentale, a qualcosa di profondamente nuovo. Le architetture vanno un’uso
strumentaria della storia, che influenza, profondamente, l’intera cultura Europea, dal
Settecento ad oggi, tanto che oggi ancora appunto, ne siamo talmente profondamente
investiate direi, da non riuscire a staccarsi, e testimonianze ne sono, testimonianza ne è
anzi, quella ampia letteratura e quel ampio uso che si fa della storia dell’architettura, della
10
At this point, Tafuri starts to analyze the second and decisive crisis of modern architecture; the one that occurs during Enlightenment. Again, Tafuri takes a polemical stance here, to speak about Enlightenment, not in terms
of progress but in terms of a definitive breakthrough of crisis. See also in this respect the book Teorie e Storia,
where he discusses the Enlightenment in terms of the eclipse of history. (Teorie e Storia dell’architettura, chapter 1:
‘L’architettura moderna e l’eclissi della storia’.)The crisis occurs, according to Tafuri, because in the course of history
the parameters of control and their reference to transcendent, universal values, are increasingly ignored and pushed
aside. Architecture becomes mundane and relative; the Enlightened architects launch a counter-attack against this
development. They engage in what should be understood as an act of restoration: to regain a lost dignity and authority. However, so states Tafuri, at the same time we should see that something profoundly new now manifests itself.
Architects start to reduce history to an instrument, that functions alongside other cultural and technical instruments:
it is here that contemporary architecture reveals its operative nature. Architects claim historical values that were
present in earlier times, but to do so , they necessarily have to pass through the semantic crisis of their own times.
When the Humanist synthesis of reason, action and nature has proved an illusion, when the semantic potential of
architecture and the large, signifying structures of society are drifting apart, the crisis of the architectural sign becomes clear. Architectural ‘language’ no longer refers to a precise meaning, architecture no longer disposes of a precise
recognisability in this sense. In all the major surveys that Tfafuri wrote during this period; in Teorie e Storia, Progetto
e Utopia, and in the essay ‘Le strutture del linguaggio nella storia dell’architettura moderna’, this semantic crisis
constitutes a cardinal point.
219
storia dell’arte, in una progettazione direi, come strumento al tavolo di disegno, insieme
ad altri strumenti culturali e tecnologici che si fusano appunto come parametri appunto
anch’ essi, parametri di controllo, anche se… ma di questo parleremo meglio nella lezione
prossima. Ma, per tornare, appunto, alla cultura dell’Illuminismo, bisogna riconoscere
quest’uso come tale della storia, come parametro di controllo, è in realtà una rivoluzione.
Senza dubbio una rivoluzione fra le più grandi, fra le più anche scomovente vedete,
della moderna architettura. Perché cosa significa, per l’architetto del Settecento, per
l’architetto neo-classico, rapportare la propria produzione alla produzione Greca o Romana? Non significa certa quel colloquio soprastorico che i teorici umanisti, dell’Umanesimo,
avevano intuiti. Invece qui accade qualcosa di profondamente nuovo, significa principalmente, riprovare dei valori contenutosi , che passano attraverso un profonda crisi segnale.
Sembra che questa storia estremamente sintetica, che abbiamo cenati, dei parametri di
controllo progettuale, dall’Umanesimo all’Barocco, ci sta dimostrando che proprio quei
parametri di controllo, servono per tramandare, per specificare, per sottoporre ad una
progettibilità non tanto poetico-particolare, quanto una struttura generale, che quella
struttura, una struttura senza dubbio, che ha i suoi valori semantiche, che crede nella valore prima antropocentrico dell’Universo, e poi se vogliamo anche policentrico, ma
sempre in una riconoscibilità precisa, del senso espressivo del linguaggio, all’interno delle
strutture determinante, è proprio con la crisi semantica, che si apre , con quella profonda
rivoluzione razionalista compiuta dall’Illuminismo, che questi contenuti , come verro
accedere, che la struttura significante dell’opera si scinde dal valore semantica dell’opera
stessa, che in questo momento, e badate bene che secondo me almeno, viviamo ancora
questa profonda crisi, che gli architetti e gli artisti in generale hanno bisogno per riconoscersi, nelle proprie opere, per riconoscere un valore etico e un valore civile, per le proprie
opere, di un rapporto diretto completamente riconoscibile da parte dell’osservatore, con
strutture, opere, epoche che quindi stessi valori avevano acetati. Quando David dipinge la
sua famosa quadro proprio nel 1785 sotto il porticato del Pantheon a Roma, ha ben
preciso che quel senso eroico dell’ azione umana, è qualche cosa, che quindi vuol resuscitare nella coscienza dei suoi contemporanei. E non ha altro modo per esprimere questi
contenuti etici che compongono a questa nuova coscienza che la borghesia Europea sta
assumendo e che porterà alle grande rivoluzione dell’ 89, che quello del contemporaneo
riferimento storico talmente preciso e riconoscibile da essere evidenziato e da superare,
nel fra tempo, qualsiasi strutturalità della opera figurativa in sé e per sé . Il rapporto con la
Grecia, il rapporto con la Roma repubblicana di Pluto e non più con la Roma imperiale, è
proprio per gli architetti neoclassici, un valore semantico che corrisponde in realtà ad una
crisi sistematiche. La storia entra di peso, con parametri di controllo nuovo nell’ o
perazione architettoniche.
(......)
Questi sono, evidentemente, complessi parametri di progettazione completamente
nuovo. Certo, per la cultura illuminista, per mettere appunto, la cultura Illuminista ha
bisogno di una serie di identificazione, ha bisogno di mettere da parte il problema linguistico del rappresentazione, o perlomeno di metterlo apparentemente da parte. Ha bisogno
di distruggere tutta una serie di cose, come appunto il valore simbolico del linguaggio,
perché il valore simbolico, si rapporta sempre a qualsiasi cosa che è preesistente all’atto
di progettazione, che non entra nel uso concreta dell’architettura e della città , che riporta
220
al valori trascendenti. E non credo che ci sia da inviarsi molto, se per distruggere questa
sistema simbolico e di rappresentazione, in un primo momento, come nei trattati di
Durand, LeDoux, (....) quando i teorici illuministi parlano della riconoscibilità del tipo nella
città, della caratterizzazione della produzione, del tipo architettonico nella città , essi hanno
presente che la produzione razionale della città stessa passa attraverso una perfetta
comprensione delle shockkultur da base di chi nella città vivi. Foresta quindi, una mechanica astratta, ma una mechanica diciamo contreso(..) , non solo di rappresentazione
ma di atrribuzione di valori alla dinamica urbana.11 Non si rappresentano più valori, in cui si
può rispecchiare , come una generalizzata cultura, ma si improducono valori nuovi, che
possono essere usati, trasformati, da chi quei valori usa.
Evidentemente, tutto ciò non accade senza profonde tradizioni. Ad esempio, abbiamo
visto l’uso come meta nella storia.(….) Non è un caso, che la cultura illuminista negi in
fondo il valore della storia producendo opere storiografiche come quelli di….e….. La storia
è storia di virtù umana, è ben noto per la cultura del Encyclopedie, ma, nello stesso tempo,
è storia nella quale si possono selezionare valori... È proprio in quest’opera di selezione
che si riconosce una frattura con la storia stessa, che porta ad una strumentalizzazione di
tipo storicistico. Ed ecco perchè, questo profondo spirito, di rinnovamento civile, che è
nella cultura neoclassica , si potra dimostrare più tardi, buona a tutti usi, potrà servire,…
come l’epoca dell’Europa di restaurazioni. C’è una indecisione di scelta, una mancata completa esplicitazione, proprio rispetto ai valori di una Dal Co, F., Abitare nel moderno. Bari,
(Biblioteca di Cultura Moderna 860) 1982.Dal Co, F., Abitare nel moderno. Bari, (Biblioteca
di Cultura Moderna 860) 1982. che provoca una estringa crisi.12 Ma , una seconda, un
secondo elemento, che possiamo dire…..è proprio quello, di accetare, anzi, di introdurre,
il concetto di fenomenologia nella operazione architettonica. Di far corrispondere alla
strutturazione dell’architettura, non più appunto valori universali estrinse, ma valori che
nascono al contatto col fenomeno. E quindi al contatto di una… e non sapersi affidare
completamente a questa in fine. Di aver bisogno di prendere, di fondere, concetti
linguistici, valori strutturali linguistici, da altre epoche, che naturalmente, quando si
commincia a correre in maniera esplosiva, e il metodo abbiamo detto è un valore, valore
anche civile, quando si commincia appunto a compiere questa trasposizione, traslazione,
di valori linguistici, evidentemente, si può arrivare alla concezione della completa
intercambialità dei valori. La grande crisi semantica degli arti Europee, nasce proprio nella
11 Just before in the lecture, in a passage which I have not reproduced here for reasons of space, Tafuri mentioned
how Nietzsche compared the city to a forest, which is in need of city-design, of a unifying structure, but which also
knows profound differences within that structure.
12 It is at this point that Tafuri starts to analyse the crisis of his own time, the problem that also haunts the architecture
of his days - in the 1960s. With Enlightenment, history has become a tool to be used: while a unifying world view is
lacking, history becomes an object to be selected at random. However, at the same time Enlightened culture shows a
fundamental lack of decision as to its choices of history. There is in fact a deep contradiction haunting these historical
operations : while these architects are in need of history to evoke certain values, at the same time they deny history;
they deny its force of continuity, by breaking history up in pieces. The problem of modern architectonic culture is,
according to Tafuri, that it cannot unconditionally embrace the modernity of “images” and “phenomenology” : that it
constantly harks back to previous values and meanings, thereby damaging the inherent value of history - the value of
continuity.
221
mancanza, nel mancare, nel cenere, dell’autonomia del concetto di linguaggio.
Il linguaggio non è più qualcosa che si crea, con una operazione autonomo, ma è qualcosa
che bisogno di riferimento, per poter essere attuati, per poter essere, anche costrinte ,
per poter essere usato. È, a questo punto, potremmo dire, che ciò che è stato in volte
verificato, è riguarda direi in maniera specifica il nostro attuale atteggiamento, nei confronti dei parametri di controllo, nella progettazione, rispetto alla cultura illuministica, è
stato proprio, questa, questo, camminare, questo correre, continuamente, sotto….È da
due lati di questo rasoio, esistano due valori completamente opposto. Da un lato, i valori
che correspondano ad una concezione completamente contingente, a quella rivoluzione
per la secularizzazione dell’arte, che l’illuminismo compie, senza nessuna possibilità di
equivoco, rispetto ai quali intenti. Dall’altro, la volontà , di una stabilizzazione immediata,
dei valori acquisiti. Ad una considerazione che ciò che si sta compiendo, è valore permanente. Una riproduzione del valore di assoluto, nell’operazione stessa. E, se ci rapportiamo
a quella dialettica profonda, tra forma e immagine, che abbiamo riconsciuto come i due
poli, con i quali , attraverso la polifonia , quella fondamentale atteggiamento del epoca
umanista, tra un concetto di forma di tipo umanistica, e un concetto di immagine che è
estremamente moderno, prodotto dell’arte Barocco, possiamo dire che il modo che
ancora non viene risolto dalla concezione illuminista, è proprio questa non saper scegliere
fra forma ed immagine, e di illudersi, di poterle contenere entrambi, in un’unico atto di
progettazione.
LAST PART OF DISCUSSION AFTER TAFURI’S LECTURE:
TAFURI AND OPERATIVE HISTORY
Lezione prof. Tafuri
Seconda lezione seconda parte
63:00.
(55:30)
E anche appunto, il discorso è stato fatto da me, stamattina, circa le possibilità di
introdurre nuovi parametri di controllo, perlomeno se non nuovi, di valutare con precisione
parametri di controllo esistenti, e questo è un discorso che non è né a-priori né a-posteriori: è invece l’invito a stabilire contemporaneamente, ad un atto di progettazione,
i parametri secondo i quali quest’atto di progettazione deve essere verificato. Proprio per
evitare un distacco, che è invece tipico del momento che stiamo vivendo. Cioè il distacco
fra teoria dell’arte e prassi dell’arte, teoria dell’architettura e prassi dell’architettura.
E arrivando ad un livello molto infino, è vero, fra parole e disegni. Parole molto belle,
disegni sempre vecchi, e questo appunto come ripeto, è una situazione abbastanza tipica,
e il discorso circa la critica che entra nel processo creativo, un discorso come quale,
mi trovo perfettamente d’accordo, è pero un discorso da non prendere, cosi, da non
prendere alla leggera, perche da quanto mi risulta, e credo che questo non sia un fatto
casuale, io non conosco, eccetuato che un caso, ma è un caso su cui ci sarebbe molte
cose da dire, lasciamolo perdere per ora, in cui ciò è avvenuto. Se ne parla moltissimo,
222
fa piacere parlarne, può piacere come idea, questa fase critica che interviene come controllo continua nella progettazione, ma sarebbe anche interessante vedere, quale architetto accetterebbe, una collaborazione di questa genere. Io non ne ha ancora trovati,
se ne ho trovati, è stata solo, per di una serie di persone, di amici, che è vero, chiamano,
alla fine di un processo e che ha, possono anche ascoltare, una serie di istanze,
per ricondurre personalmente avanti poi il processo. C’e anche questo, ho paura che sia
un po’una mutuazione, da fatti, che si auspicano, anche li avvengono, in altri campi come
ad esempio nelle correnti di pittura neogestaltica, è vero, e via discorrendo. Che questo
debba avvenire ad esempio, nelle facoltà di architettura, nella didattica, è abbastanza in
dubbio, però anche qui, un processo rigorosamente critico, mi chiedo, quanto possa
stimulare, nell’atto di progettazione, la progettazione stessa. Cioè mi chiedo se, gli
strumenti che ha il critico, e lo storico per intervenire, non siano degli strumenti che hanno
una loro carico, una loro dimensione, che non può intervenire nel atto immediato nella atto
di creazione, perché bloccherebbe continuamente tutte le fasi, perché costretto a rapportarsi a valori abbastanza elevati, abbstanza universalizzati, abbastanza assolutizzati. Il tipo
di, tanto è vero che, ai fin dei conti, quando è vero si corregiano diciamo così i progetti di
architettura, discorsi rigorosamenti critici non vengono fatti da nessuno, anche da chi le
sarebbe fare. E perché questo, da un lato, molti studenti auspicano per esempio a Roma,
è vero, questi si lamentano, che questo non avviene. Ma personalmente ho fatto una esperienza, di questa genere, cioè ho provato vedere, cosa succede, e ho visto che ciò a cui
arrivano, facendo quelli che gli studenti chiedevano, è la distruzione sistematico dello
studente, i quali si sentano immerso, si, in un discorso così ampio, sollevato, improvisamente, è vero, agli vertici, ma poi ripreso, richiambato giù nel burrone perchè, è vero,
proprio al contatto di una serie di valori che, sono quelli si quali il critico lavora, è vero,
non può reggere il confronto. Questa non significa che la fase critica non debba entrare,
ma deve entrare, nel mio parere, in un suo modo particolare. Per esempio, non lasciandosi strumentalizzare dalla progettazione. Cioè, fra storia, critica e progettazione, è vero,
esistono dei limiti, netti, che debbano essere rispettati da tutti, perche la storia va
rispettata, senza forzature per cui Michelangelo e Le Corbusier sono sullo stesso piano,
o si confrontano fra di loro, perché questa significa, non rispettare la storia e quindi,
strumentalizzarle in quel modo negativo di cui ho parlato la volta scorsa, e, nello stesso
tempo, bisogna rispettare la progettazione, cioè trovare i valori che una progettazione a
tutti livelli ha, al di fuori di una serie di istanze generalissimi, che il critico, lo storico,
se no porta con se, se ne porta quando scrive, o le esprime, è vero, in se delle trattazione
storiche.’
223
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. PRIMARY SOURCES: MANFREDO TAFURI
A. ARTICLES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Tafuri, M., ‘La prima strada di Roma moderna: Via Nazionale’, Urbanistica, no. 27, 1959,
95-109.
Tafuri, M., ‘La Biblioteca Nazionale di Roma’, Rassegna del Lazio, no. 2, 1960, 16-20.
Tafuri, M., Teodori M., ‘Un dibattito sull’architettura e l’urbanistica italiane’, Casabella
Continuità, no. 241, 1961, 56.
Tafuri, M., ‘L’ampliamento barocco del commune di S. Gregorio da Sassola’ , rilievi di
Salvatore Dierna, Lidia Soprani, Manfredo Tafuri, Giorgio Testa, Alessandro Urbani,
Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell’architettura, Facoltà di Architettura, Università di Roma,
no. 31-48, 1959-1961, (memorial volume dedicated to prof. Vincenzo Fasolo), 369-380.
Tafuri, M., ‘La vicenda architettonica romana. 1945-61’, Superfici, no. 5., 1962, 20-41.
Tafuri, M., ‘Problemi di critica e probemi di datazione in due monumenti taorminesi:
il Palazzo dei duchi di S. Stefano e la “Badia Vecchia’, con rilievi di Lidia Soprani e Manfredo Tafuri, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell’architettura, Facoltà di Architettura,
Università di Roma, no. 51, 1962, 3-10.
Tafuri, M., Piccinato, G., Quilici, V., (per lo studio AUA di Roma) ‘La Città Territorio – verso
una nuova dimensione’ Casabella Continuità, no. 270, 1962, 16-25.
Tafuri, M., Fattinanzi, E., (per lo studio AUA di Roma) ‘Un’ipotesi per la città-territorio di
Roma, strutture produttive e direzionali nel comprensorio pontino’, Casabella Continuità,
no. 274, 1963, 26-37.
Tafuri, M., ‘Architettura e socialismo nel pensiero di William Morris’, review of: Mario
Manieri Elia, ed., Architettura e socialismo, Bari 1963, in: Casabella Continuità, no. 280,
1963, 46-53.
Tafuri, M., ‘Ludovico Quaroni e la cultura architettonica italiana’ Zodiac, International
magazine of contemporary architecture, no. 11, 1963, 130-145.
Tafuri, M., ‘Un “fuoco” urbano della Roma Barocca’, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia
dell’architettura, Facoltà di Architettura, Università di Roma, no. 61, 1964, 1-26.
Tafuri, M., ‘Razionalismo critico e nuovo utopismo’, Casabella Continuità, no. 293, 1964,
20-25.
224
Tafuri, M., ‘La nuova dimensione urbana e la funzione dell’utopia’, L’architettura, cronache
e storia, no. 124, 1966, 680-683.
Tafuri, M., ‘Lo “spazio” e le “cose”: città, town-design, architettura’ , in: Giulio Carlo Argan ed., Lo spazio visivo della città “urbanistica e cinematografo”. Milano, 1969.
Tafuri, M., ‘Per una critica dell’ideologia architettonica’ , Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti,
no. 1, 1969, 31-79.
Tafuri, M., ‘Lavoro intelletuale e sviluppo capitalistico’, Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti, no.
2, 1970, 241-248.
Tafuri, M., ‘Austromarxismo e città, “das Rote Wien”’, Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti,
no. 2, 1971, 259-311.
Tafuri, M., ‘Socialdemocrazia e città nella Repubblica di Weimar’, Contropiano, Materiali
Marxisti, no. 1, 1971, 257-311.
Tafuri, M., ‘Socialdemocrazia e città nella Repubblica di Weimar’ (review of books)
Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti, no. 4, 1971, 207-223.
Tafuri, M., ‘Design and Technological Utopia’, in: Emilio Ambasz ed., Italy: The New
Domestic Landscape: Achievements and Problems of Italian Design. New York, 1972.
Tafuri, M., ‘The Main Lines of the Great Theoretical Debate over Architecture and Urban
Planning 1960-1977’, Architecture and Urbanism, no. 100, 1979, 133-154.
Tafuri, M., ‘Architecture and Poverty’, Architectural Design Profile 52, special issue
‘Modern Architecture and the Critical Present’, no. 7-8, 1982, 57-59.
B. BOOKS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Tafuri, M., L’architettura moderna in Giappone. Bologna, (l’architettura contemporanea 1)
1964.
Tafuri, M., Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna in Italia. Milano,
(Panorami e profili d’architettura e urbanistica 5) 1964.
Tafuri, M., ‘Le strutture del linguaggio nella storia dell’architettura moderna’, Teoria della
progettazione architettonica, A. Locatelli ed., Bari, (Architettura e città 3) 1968, 12-30.
Tafuri, M., Teorie e Storia dell’architettura. Bari, 4th edition, 1976 (1968). Fourth edition
translated by G. Verrecchia, Theories and History of Architecture, London, 1980.
Tafuri, M., Il concorso per i nuovi uffici della camera dei deputati, Un bilancio dell’architettura
italiana. Roma, 1968.
225
Tafuri, M., Jacopo Sansovino e l’architettura del ‘500 a Venezia. Venezia, 1969.
Tafuri, M., L’architettura dell’Umanesimo, 3rd ed., Bari, (Universale Laterza 125)
1976 (1969).
Tafuri, M., Asor Rosa, A., Cassetti, B., Ciucci, G., Dal Co, F., De Michelis, M., Di Leo, R.,
Junghanns[sic],K., Oorthuys, G., Procházka, V., Schmidt, H., Socialismo, città, architettura,
URSS 1917-1937, il contributo degli architetti europei. Roma, (Collana di Architettura diretta da ManfredoTafuri, 3) 1971.
Tafuri, M., Cacciari, M., Dal Co, F., De la vanguardia a la metropoli: critica radical a la
arquitectura. Barcelona, 1972.
Tafuri, M., Cohen, J.L., Michelis, M. de, URSS 1917-1978, La città, l’architettura/La ville,
l’architecture. Rome, 1973.
Tafuri, M., Progetto e utopia, Architettura e sviluppo capitalistico. Bari, (saggi tascabili 1)
1973. Translated by B.L. La Penta, Architecture and Utopia, Design and Capitalist
Development. Cambridge Massachusetts, 1976.
• Kapitalismus und Architektur, Von Corbusiers “Utopia” zur Trabantenstadt. Ed.
and transl. by Th. Bandholtz, N. Kuhnert, J. Rodriguez-Lores, Hamburg, (Analyse zum
Planen und Bauen 9)1977.
• Projet et Utopie, de l’avantgarde à la Metropole. Ed. and transl. by F. Brun and L.
Ravé-Emy, Paris (Espace, Architecture) 1977.
• Ontwerp en Utopie, architektuur en ontwikkeling van het kapitalisme. Transl. by S.U.
Barbieri, C. Boekraad, F. Denissen, K. Vollemans, Nijmegen, (Marxisme en Kultuur,
Sunschrift 117) 1978.
• Projecto e Utopia: arquitectura e desenvolvimento do capitalismo. Transl. by C. Jardim
and E. Nogueira, Lisboa, 1985.
Tafuri, M., Ciucci, G., Dal Co, F., Manieri-Elia, M., La Città Americana, dalla guerra civile al
New Deal. Roma, 1973. Translated by B.L. La Penta, The American City, From the Civil
War to the New Deal. Cambridge Massachusetts, 1979.
Tafuri, M., La Sfera e il Labirinto, Avanguardie e architettura da Piranesi agli anni ’70.
Torino, (saggi 620) 1980. Translated by P. d’Acierno and R. Connolly, The Sphere and the
Labyrinth, Avant-Gardes and Architecture from Piranesi to the 1970s. Cambridge
Massachusetts, 1987.
Tafuri, M., Vienna Rossa, La politica residenziale nella Vienna socialista, 1919-1933.
Milano, 1980.
Tafuri, M., Francesco Dal Co, Architettura Contemporanea. Milano, (Storia dell’architettura)
1976. Translated by R.E. Wolf, Modern Architecture. 2 vols., New York, (History of World
Architecture) 1986.
226
Tafuri, M., Storia dell’architettura italiana 1944-1985. Torino, (Piccola biblioteca Einaudi
470) 1986.
C. MISCELLANEOUS PRINT AND NONPRINT SOURCES
Manfredo Tafuri, ‘La storia dell’architettura moderna alla luce dei problemi attuali’,
(Sommari e bibliografie critiche), typescript, 1964-65, Istituto di Studi sulla Architettura –
Facoltà di Architettura di Palermo.
‘La storia come Progetto’ , Manfredo Tafuri interviewed by Luisa Passerini, Art History
Oral Documentation Project, Getty Center for the History of Art and Humanities,
University of California Oral History Program, Los Angeles, 1993. This interview was
published in:
‘Being Manfredo Tafuri: Wickedness, Anxiety, Disenchantment’, special issue Any,
Cynthia C. Davidson ed., no. 25-26, 2000.
‘Il Progetto Storico di Manfredo Tafuri’, special issue Casabella rivista internazionale di
architettura, no. 619-620, January-February 1995.
Venezia, Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia, Archivio Progetti, ‘Lezione Prof.
Tafuri’, Compact disc, 64 minutes, ag. 072000, CD no.1., prima lezione, 1966.
Venezia, Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia, ‘Archivio sonoro di Manfredo
Tafuri’, assembled by Luca Scappin, part of ‘Progetto di ricerca, riordino e di
inventariazione analitica del fondo Manfredo Tafuri’, typescript Luca Scappin, Venice
2001.
Giulio Lupo, Mercedes Daguerre, ‘Entrevista con Manfredo Tafuri’, Materiales 5 – PEHCHCESCA, Buenos Aires, March 1983, ‘Entrevista con Manfredo Tafuri’, ibid., March 1985,
‘Entrevista con Massimo Cacciari’, ibid., March 1985, ‘Entrevista a Francesco Dal Co’,
ibid., March 1985, ‘Entrevista a Franco Rella’, ibid., March 1985. now on:
http://www.BazarAmericano.com/arquitectura/materiales, accessed November 2003.
Michela Maguolo, ‘Le Storie dell’architettura moderna’, typoscript, Materiali per il Corso di
Storia dell’architettura 2 held by Prof. Masiero, Anno accademico 1993-94, I.U.A.V.,
Venezia, 1994.
Roberta Brunetti, ‘Architettura in lutto - rinviato l’inaugurazione dell’anno academico’ Il
Gazzettino, Thursday 24 February 1994, p.11. Alberto Asor Rosa, ‘Fu un grande certosino
dell’immaginario’ L’Unità, 24 February 1994, p.4. Andrea Branzi, ‘Tafuri, l’architettura come
forma sovrana’ L’Unità, 24 February 1994, p.4. Gae Aulenti, ‘Un artista della critica’,
La Repubblica, 24 February 1994, Massimo Cacciari, ‘Vedeva l’universo come i filosofi’,
La Repubblica, 24 February 1994.
Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Facoltà di Architettura, Professor Leonardo
Benevolo, Corso di Storia dell’architettura II 1959-60, lezioni a cura di Dott.Arch.
A. Bruschi, Dott. Arch. V. Franchetti-Pardo, Prof. Arch. I. Insolera, Dott. Arch. M. Manieri
227
Elia, Dott. Arch. G. Samonà-Marcialis, biblioteca Università degli Studi di Roma
‘La Sapienza’, Facoltà di Architettura, Piazza Borghese, Roma.
Columbia University New York, Department of Architecture, Prof. M. McLeod,
‘Contemporary Theory and Criticism of Architecture: Structuralism/poststructuralism,
Postmodernism/deconstructivism’, reader accompanying course with the same name,
Spring-Fall 1995.
Geert Hovingh ed., Architectuur en filosofie, More songs about buildings en food.
Reader Academie van Bouwkunst Groningen, 1988.
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Institute for Art and Architectural History, E. Taverne, ‘Layouts
and fabrics, architecten ‘maken’ de stad, 1930-1990’. Reader, academic year 1992.
Bernard Kormoss, ‘Le silence de la Métropole, sur les limites du possible’, master’s
thesis, Mémoire A5, 2/1996, I.S.A. Saint-Luc, Liège.
Rixt Hoekstra, ‘Improbus Labor, Manfredo Tafuri en de onmogelijkheid van een
architectuurhistorische theorie’, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Institute for Art and
Architectural History, master’s thesis, 1994.
Federico Rosa, ‘Progetto e critica dell’urbanistica moderna: i primi anni di attività di
Manfredo Tafuri 1959-1968’, master’s thesis, I.U.A.V. 2003, relatore Bernardo Secchi.
D. TAFURI’S COLLEAGUES
Asor Rosa, A., ‘Il giovane Lukács, teorico dell’arte borghese’, Contropiano, Materiali
Marxisti, no.1, 1968, 59-107.
Cacciari, M., ‘Saggio su “Scrittori e Popolo”, problemi generali dell’indagine sul
populismo’ , Angelus Novus, Trimestrale di estetica e critica, no. 5, 1965, 31-79.
Cacciari, M., ‘Note di estetica hegeliana, nr.1: Storia del sistema’, Angelus Novus,
Trimestrale di estetica e critica, no.1, 1964, 1-33.
Cacciari, M., ‘Dialettica e tradizioni’, Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti, no.1, 1968, 125-153.
Cacciari, M., ‘Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo’, Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti, no.1,
1969, 131-201.
Cacciari, M., Metropolis, Saggi sulla grande città di Sombart, Endell, Scheffler e Simmel.
Roma, (Collana di Architettura diretta da Manfredo Tafuri, 7) 1973.
Cacciari, M., Krisis. Saggio sulla crisi del pensiero negativo da Nietzsche a Wittgenstein.
Milano, (I fatti e le idee; 332) 1975.
228
Cacciari, M., Walter Rathenau e il suo ambiente; con un antologia di scritti e discorsi
politici, 1919-1921. Bari, (Mediazioni 19) 1979.
Cacciari, M., Amendolagine, F., Oikos: da Loos a Wittgenstein. Roma, (Collana di
architettura; 15) 1975.
Cacciari, M., Dallo Steinhof, prospettive viennesi del primo Novecento. Milano, (Saggi, 17)
1980.
Cacciari, M., Icone della legge. Milano, (Saggi, 30) 1985.
Cacciari, M., Dell’inizio. Milano, (Biblioteca filosofica; 8), 1990.
Cacciari, M., Rella, F., Tafuri, M., Teyssot, G., Il dispositivo Foucault. Venezia, 1977.
Cacciari, M., ‘Eupalinos or Architecture’, Oppositions-a journal for ideas and criticism in
architecture, no. 21, 1980, 169-181.
Cacciari, M., ‘Metropoli della mente’, Casabella rivista internazionale di architettura, no.4,
1986, 14-15.
Cacciari, M., Architecture and Nihilism: On the Philosophy of Modern Architecture, ed. M.
Rakatansky, New Haven, (Theoretical Perspectives in Architectural History and Criticism)
1993.
Calabi, D., Il mercato e la città; piazze, strade, architettura d’Europa in età moderna.
Venezia, (saggi Marsilio Polis) 1993.
Dal Co, F., ‘Note per la critica dell’ideologia della architettura moderna: da Weimar a
Dessau’, Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti, no. 1, 1968, 153-171.
Dal Co, F., ed., Architettura o rivoluzione: Hannes Meyer, Scritti 1921-1942, Padova,
1969.
Dal Co, F., ‘Riscoperta del marxismo e problematica di classe nel movimento studentesco
europeo. Rudi Dutschke’, Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti, no. 2, 1968, 423-443.
Dal Co, F., Abitare nel moderno. Bari, (Biblioteca di Cultura Moderna 860) 1982..
Dal Co, F., ‘La cultura di Le Corbusier’, Op.Cit.:selezione della critica d’arte
contemporanea, January 1971, 44-63.
Dal Co, F., Abitare nel moderno. Bari, (Biblioteca di Cultura Moderna 860) 1982.
Dal Co, F., Teorie del moderno, architettura germania 1880-1920. Bari, (Biblioteca di
Cultura Moderna 867)1982.
229
Michelis, C. de, ‘Il coraggio di parlar delle rose, ovvero l’astuzia delle colombe’, Angelus
Novus, trimestrale di estetica e critica, no. 1, 1964, 72-81.
Negri, A., ‘La teoria capitalistica nel ’29: John M. Keynes’, Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti,
no.1, 1968, 3-41.
Rella, F., ed., La critica Frediana-Scritti di R. Gasché. Milano, 1977.
Rella, F., Miti e Figure del Moderno. Parma, 1981.
Rella, F., Critica e Storia, Materiali su Benjamin di: M. Cacciari, F. Desideri, G. Franck,
R. Infelise-Fronza, G. Mensching, F. Rella, J. Derrida, W. Benjamin. Venezia, 1980.
Tronti, M., ‘Estremismo e riformismo’, Contropiano, Materiali Marxisti, no.1, 1968,
41-59.
II. SECONDARY SOURCES
A
Abbagnano, N., Storia della filosofia. Torino, 1994.
Ackerman, J.S., Distance Points, Essays in Theory and Renaissance Art and Architecture.
Cambridge Massachusetts, 1994.
Adorno, Th.W., Minima Moralia: Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben. Frankfurt,
1951. Translated in Italian as: Minima Moralia. Meditazione della vita offesa. Ed. and trans.
by R. Solmi, Torino, 1954
Adorno, Th.W., Philosophie der Neuen Musik. Tübingen, 1949. Translated into Italian as
Filosofia della musica moderna. Translated by L. Rognoni, Torino 1959.
Ambasz, E. ed., Italy: the New Domestic Landscape: achievements and problems of
Italian design. New York, 1972. Published in conjunction with the exhibition ‘Italy:
the New Domestic Landscape’ shown at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, May 26
to September 11 1972.
Ankersmit, F.R., Denken over geschiedenis.
geschiedfilosofische opvattingen. Groningen, 1986.
Een
overzicht
van
moderne
Ankersmit, F.R., ‘Historiography and Postmodernism’, in: B. Fay, P. Pomber, R.T. Vann,
eds., History and Theory, Contemporary Readings. Oxford 1998, 173-223.
Argan, G.C., Walter Gropius e la Bauhaus. Torino, (Piccola biblioteca Einaudi 499) 1988,
original edition Torino, 1951.
Argan, G.C., Progetto e destino. Milano, (Storia, critica, testi, La Cultura 102) 1965.
230
Argan, G.C. ed., Lo spazio visivo della città ‘urbanistica e cinematografo’. Milano,
(Dagli atti del 16 Convegno Internazionale Artisti, Critici e Studiosi d’arte) 1969.
Asor Rosa, A., Scrittori e popolo, il populismo nella letteratura italiana contemporanea.
Torino, (Gli struzzi 337) 1988, original edition Torino, 1965.
Asor Rosa, A., ‘La Cultura’, Storia d’Italia, 4, tomo secondo: dall’Unità a oggi, Torino
1975.
Asor Rosa, A., ‘Critica dell’ideologia ed esercizio storico- Critique of ideology and historical
practice’, Casabella, no. 619-620 (1995), 28-33.
B
Banham, R., Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. (1960) 4 ed., London, 1970.
.
Banham, R., The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment. London, 1969.
Bartels, J., De geschiedenis van het subject, Hegel, Nietzsche. Kampen, (Bijdragen tot de
geschiedenis en systematiek van de wijsbegeerte) 1995.
Barbieri, S.U. ed., Architectuur en planning: Nederland 1940-1980. Rotterdam, 1983.
Bergeijk, H. van, Mácel O., eds., “We vragen de kunstenaars kind te zijn van eigen tijd”
Teksten van Mart Stam. Nijmegen, 1999.
Benevolo, L., Storia dell’architettura moderna. Bari 1960. Translated by H.J. Landry as:
History of Modern Architecture, 2 vols. London, 1971.
Benevolo, L., Le origini dell’urbanistica moderna. Bari, (Biblioteca di cultura moderna 583),
1963. Translated as: The Origins of Modern Town Planning. Translated by J. Landry,
Cambridge Masschusetts, 1967.
Benevolo, L., Storia dell’architettura del Rinascimento. 2 vols., Bari, 1968. Translated as:
The Architecture of the Renaissance. Trans. from the 2 rev. ed. by J. Landry, London,
1978.
Benevolo, L., La città nella storia d’Europa. Bari, etc., (Fare l’Europa) 1993. Translated as:
The European City. Translated by C. Ipsen, Oxford, (The Making of Europe)1993.
Benevolo, L., Giura Longo T., Melograni C., I modelli di progettazione della città moderna.
Tre lezioni. Venezia, 1969.
Benevolo, L., La città e l’architetto. Bari, (Universale Laterza 644), 1984.
Benevolo, L., La laurea d’obbligo. Bari, (I giornalibri) 1979.
231
Benjamin, W., Angulus Novus, saggi e frammenti. Translated by R. Solmi, Torino, 1962.
Biagi, P. di, Gabellini P., eds., Urbanisti Italiani, Piccinato, Marconi, Samonà, Quaroni,
De Carlo, Astengo, Campos Venuti. Bari, 1992.
Bohigas, O., ‘Aldo van Eyck or a New Amsterdam School’, Oppositions, a journal for ideas
and criticism in architecture, no. 9, 1977, 19-36.
Bonifazio, P., Palma P., eds., Architettura Spazio Scritto, forme e tecniche delle teorie
dell’architettura in Italia dal 1945 ad oggi. Torino, 2001.
Bonifazio, P., Pace, S., Rosso, M., Scrivano P., eds., Tra guerra e pace, società, cultura e
architettura nel secondo dopoguerra. Milano, 1998.
Bonifazio, P., Scrivano, P., Olivetti Builds, Modern architecture in Ivrea, Guide to the Open
Air Museum. Milano, 2001.
Bossaglia, R., Parlando con Argan. Nuoro, 1992.
Boyne, R., Foucault and Derrida, The Other Side of Reason. London, 1990.
Breuning, H.J., Italienische Architektur der Nachkriegszeit und deren Spiegelungen in der
Gegenwart, PhD diss., Fakultät für Architektur und Stadtplanung der Universität Stuttgart,
1999. Now at:
http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2000/599/pdf/teil01.pdf
Budillon Puma, P., La Biennale di Venezia, dalla guerra alla crisi, 1948-1968. Bari, 1995.
C
Canella, G., Coppa, M., Gregotti, V., Rossi, A., Samonà A., Scimemi, G., Semerani, L.,
Tafuri, M., Teoria della progettazione architettonica. Bari, (Architettura e città 3) 1968.
Canzan, M., Orizzonti del fare architettonico, Progetto Estetica Teoria nel dibattito italiano
del dopoguerra. Milano, (statuti discorsivi dell’architettura) 1995.
Calimani, R., La Polenta e la Mercanzia. Rimini, 1984.
Catapano, G., ‘Coincidentia Oppositorum, Appunti sul pensiero di Massimo Cacciari’,
2001. http://venus.unive.it/cise/contributi/catapano0052002.doc
Chabod, F., L’Italia contemporanea (1918-1948). Torino, (Piccola biblioteca Einaudi 11)
1961.
Casabella Continuità, special issue ‘Il dibattito sulle scuole di architettura in Italia’,
no. 287, May 1964.
232
Casciato, M., ‘The Italian Mosaic: the Architect as Historian’, Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, vol. 62, no.1. (March 2003), 92-101.
Cauter, L. De, De dwerg in de schaakautomaat, Benjamins verborgen leer. Nijmegen,
1999.
Cederna, A., I vandali in casa. Bari, (Libri del tempo Laterza 38) 1956.
Cederna, A., La distruzione della natura in Italia. Torino, (Piccola biblioteca Einaudi 243)
1975.
Cederna, A., Mussolini urbanista, lo sventramento di Roma negli anni del consenso.
Bari, (Biblioteca di cultura moderna 825) 1981.
Chastel, A., Renaissance méridionale: Italie, 1460-1500. Paris, (L’Univers des formes 7)
1965.
Ciucci, G., Gli architetti e il fascismo, architettura e città 1922-1944. Torino, (Piccola
biblioteca Einaudi 515) 1989.
Ciucci, G., Dal Co, F., Atlante dell’architettura italiana del Novecento. Milano, 1991.
Cohen, J.L., ‘La coupure entre architectes et intellectuels, ou les enseignements de
l’italophilie’, In extenso, recherches à l’École d’Architecture Paris-Villemin, no.1, 1984.
Cohen, J.L., ‘Transalpine Architektur, der französische Italianismus zwischen 1965 und
1980’, Archithese, no.4, 1988, special issue ‘Viva la France’, 67-73.
Collins, P., Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture 1750-1950. London, 1965.
D
.
Dancy, J., Sosa, E., eds., A companion to Epistemology. 8 ed., Malden Massachusetts,
(Blackwell Companions to Philosophy) 1998.
Dippel, R.M., ‘Venetië 1968: de 34ste Biennale en de politionele actie’, Museumjournaal,
no.4.,1968, 191-197.
E
Eck, C. van, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture: an Enquiry into its
Theoretical and Philosophical Background. Amsterdam, 1994.
F
233
Fasolo, V., ‘Riforme e Contro’, with remarks by Bruno Zevi, Metron, Rivista internazionale
d’architettura, n. 25, 1948, 1- 4.
Farmer, B., Louw, H., eds., Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thought. London,
1993.
Febvre, L., Le problème de l’incroyance au XVIe siècle; la religion de Rabelais. (1942)
New ed., Paris, (L’évolution de l’humanité) 1988.
Febvre, L., Un destin, Martin Luther. (1928) 4 ed., Paris, 1968.
Frampton, K., Modern architecture, a critical history. London, (The World of Art Library)
1980.
Frampton, K., ed., ‘Modern Architecture and the Critical Present’, special issue
Architectural Design Profile, no.7-8, 1982.
Francastel, P., Peinture e societé: naissance et destruction d’un espace plastique:
de la Renaissance au Cubism. Lyon, 1951. Translated in Italian as: Lo spazio figurativo dal
Rinascimento al Cubismo. Translated by A.M. Mazzucchelli, Torino, (Saggi 219) 1957.
G
Gavagna, R., Benjamin in Italia, bibliografia italiana 1956-1980. Firenze, 1982.
Games, S., ed., Nikolaus Pevsner, Pevsner on Art and Architecture, The Radio Talks.
London, 2002.
Georgiadis, S., Sigfried Giedion, An intellectual Biography. Translated by C. Hall,
Edinburgh, (Architectural interfaces) 1993.
Giedion, S., Spazio, tempo ed architettura, lo sviluppo di una nuova tradizione. Ed.
and trans. by E. Labò and M. Labò, Milan 1954.
Giedion, S., Architecture You and Me: The Diary of a Development. Cambridge
Massachusetts, 1954.
Ginsborg, P., Storia d’Italia dal dopoguerra a oggi, società e politica 1943-1988.
Torino (Gli struzzi 370), 1989.
Goldhagen, S.W., Legault, R., Anxious Modernisms, experimentation in post-war
architectural culture. Montreal and Cambridge Massachusetts, 2000.
Geertz, C., The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, 1973.
Gregotti, V., New Directions in Italian architecture. London, (New Directions in
Architecture) 1968.
234
Gregotti, V., Il territorio dell’architettura. Milano, (SC/10 41) 1966.
H
Hauser, A., Sociale geschiedenis van de kunst. Nijmegen, (Sun reprint; 13) 1975,
reprint of the Dutch translation Van grotschildering tot filmbeeld: de geschiedenis van de
kunst en literatuur als maatschappelijk verschijnsel, Amsterdam 1957. Originally published
as The Social History of Art in 1951.
Heidegger, M., Off The Beaten Track. Ed. and Transl. by J. Young and K. Haynes,
Cambridge 2002. Originally published as Holzwege in 1950.
Heynen, H., ‘The Venice School, or the Diagnosis of Negative Thought’, in: W. Littman ed.,
‘Humanism and Posthumanism’ , special issue Design Book Review, no. 41-42,
San Francisco, (California College of Arts and Crafts) 2000, 23-29.
Heynen, H., Architecture and Modernity: a Critique. Cambridge Massachusetts, 1999.
Heynen, H., Loeckx, A., De Cauter, L., Van Herck, K., eds., ‘Dat is architectuur’:
Sleutelteksten uit de 20e eeuw. Rotterdam, 2001.
Hitchcock, H.R., Johnson, P., The International Style; Architecture since 1922. (1932)
New ed., New York, 1966.
Hoekstra, H., The Orthodoxy of the Heart, Faith, Fryslân and Feminism in the Novels of
Ypk fan der Fear. Groningen, (Estrikken 74) 1998.
I
.
Isnenghi, M., Woolf, S., L’Ottocento e il Novecento. 3 vols., Roma, (Istituto della
Enciclopedia Italiana) 2002.
J
Jameson, F., Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham,
(Post-Contemporary Interventions) 1991.
K
Koster, E., Stadsmorfologie, een proeve van vormgericht onderzoek ten behoeve van
stedenbouwhistorisch onderzoek. PhD diss., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 2001.
L
Le Goff, J., Nora, P., eds., Faire de l’histoire. 3 vols., Paris, (Bibliothèque des histoires)
1974-1975.
Le Goff, J., Nora, P., eds., Constructing the Past: Essays in Historical Methodology.
Translated by C. Lucas, Cambridge, 1985.
235
Le Goff, J., La naissance du Purgatoire. Paris, 1982.
Llorens, T., ‘Manfredo Tafuri, Neo-Avant-Garde and History’, in: D. Porphyrios ed., special
issue Architectural Design Profile – On the Methodology of Architectural History, no. 51,
1981, 83-95.
Lúkacs, G., Die Zerstörung der Vernunft, Der Weg von Irrationalismus von Schelling bis zu
Hitler (1954). Berlin, 1955.
Lumley R., States of Emergency, Cultures of Revolt in Italy from 1968 to 1978.
London,1990.
M
Mallgrave, H.F., Ikonomou, E., trans. and ed., Empathy, Form and Space, Problems in
German Aesthetics, 1873-1893. Santa Monica (Getty Center for the History of the Art and
the Humanities, series Texts and Documents) 1994.
Manieri Elia, M., L’architettura del dopoguerra in USA. Bologna, (l’architettura
contemporanea 6) 1968.
Matthews, E., Twentieth-Century French Philosophy. Oxford, 1996.
Middelaar, L. van, Politicide, De moord op de politiek in de Franse filosofie. Amsterdam,
(Kennis/Openbare mening/Politiek) 1999.
Molinterno, G., ed., Encyclopedia of Contemporary Italian culture. London, 2000.
Movimento studentesco ed., Documenti della rivolta universitaria, a cura del movimento
studentesco. Bari, (Tempi nuovi 4) 1968.
Moorsel, Wies van, ‘Volkshuisvesting: een kwestie van aanpassing of vernieuwing?’,
Nieuwste Tijd, no. 2, October 2001, 49-61.
N
Negri, A., Terugkeer, Een biopolitiek ABC, gesprekken met Anne Dufourmantelle. Trans.
by Marijke Koekoek, Amsterdam 2003.
Nieuwstadt, M. J. van, ‘De architectuur als fabel of Cacciari in Amerika’, Oase, Tijdschrift
voor architectuur-Venetiaanse Perspectieven, no. 44, 1996, 43-58.
Nora, P., Les Lieux de mémoire, 3 vols., Paris, (Bibliothèque illustrée des histoires)
1984-1992.
Norberg Schulz, Chr., Meaning in Western Architecture. (1974) Rev. ed., New York,
1980.
236
O
Ockman, J., Architecture Culture 1943-1968, a Documentary Anthology. New York,
(Columbia Books of Architecture) 1993.
Ockman J., ed., Architecture, Criticism, Ideology. Princeton, 1985.
Olmo, C., Urbanistica e società civile, Esperienza e conoscenza 1945-1960. Torino,
(Pubblicazioni della Fondazione Adriano Olivetti) 1992.
Ortoleva, P., Saggio sui movimenti del 1968 in Europa e in America, con un’antalogia di
materiali e documenti. Roma, (politica; 3) 1988.
P
Passerini, L., Autoritratto di gruppo. Firenze, 1988. Translated as: Autobiography of a
generation, Italy 1968. Translated by L. Erdberg, Hanover ,1996.
Passerini, L., Torino operaia e fascismo. Bari, (Biblioteca di cultura moderna 894) 1984.
Translated as: L. Passerini, R. Lumley, Fascism in Popular Memory: The Cultural
Experience of the Turin Working Class. Cambridge etc., (Studies in Modern Capitalism)
1987.
Passerini, L., Geppert, A.C.T., ‘Historians in Flux: The concept, Task and Challenge of
Ego-histoire’ , Historein, vol.3, 2001, 7-16.
Pardo, V.F., ed., La Facoltà di Architettura dell’Università “La Sapienza” dalle origine al due
mila, discipline, docenti, studenti. Roma, 2001.
Perrot, J.C., Genèse d’une ville moderne. Caen au XVIII siècle. Lille, 1974.
Pevsner, N., Pioneers of Modern Design from William Morris to Walter Gropius. London,
(Penguin Peregrine Books) 1986, originally published as Pioneers of the Modern
Movement, from William Morris to Walter Gropius. London, 1936. Translated by G. Baracco as I pionieri del Movimento Moderno da William Morris a Walter Gropius. Milano,
(Il pensiero; critica storia filosofia),1945.
Pevsner, N., An Outline of European Architecture. Harmondsworth, 1960, first edition
1943.
Pietrantonio, G. di, ‘Non esiste e non puo’esistere un valore collettivamente riconosciuto
intorno a cui far ruotare il sistema della cultura’, interview with Manfredo Tafuri, Flash Art,
February-March 1990, 87-92.
Piccinato,
G.,
L’architettura
contemporanea
in
Francia.
Bologna,
(l’architettura
237
contemporanea 3) 1965.
Pigafetta, G., Saverio Muratori architetto, Teoria e progetti. Venezia, (Polis)1990.
Pisani, M., Dialogo con Paolo Portoghesi, per comprendere l’architettura. Roma,
(Officina 5 nuova serie) 1989.
Polano, S., Mulazzani, M., Guida all’architettura moderna del Novecento. Milano, 1991.
Portoghesi, P., Zevi, B., eds., Michelangiolo architetto. Torino, (Collana di storia di
architettura 6) 1964.
Provoost, M., Hugh Maaskant, Architect van de vooruitgang. Phd diss., Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen 2003, Rotterdam, 2003.
Q
Quilici, V., Architettura Sovietica contemporanea. Bologna, (l’architettura contemporanea
4) 1965.
R
Raggi, F., Europe/America: Architetture urbane, alternative suburbane. Published on the
occasion of an exhibition held in Venice in 1976. Venezia, (La Biennale di Venezia) 1978.
‘In liefde verenigd: het vitale Europa van Luisa Passerini’, interview by Randeraad, N.,
van Heteren, G., Nieuwste Tijd, no.4, March 2002, 5-14.
Rojas, C.A.A., ‘1968 as a turning point in historical thinking: changes in western
historiography’ Groniek, no.160, 2003, 369-380.
Rykwert, J., The dancing column: on order in architecture. Cambridge Massachusetts,
1966.
S
Sabatini, M., review of: Manfredo Tafuri, Theories and History of Architecture,
Harvard Design Magazine, Fall 2003-Winter 2004, 104-109.
Samonà, G., L’urbanistica e l’avvenire della città negli stati europei. Bari, (Biblioteca di
cultura moderna) 1959.
Saggio, A., ‘Il Progetto Storico di Manfredo Tafuri’, Domus, no.773, July-August 1995,
also published as ‘Il pendolo di Tafuri’ at: http:www.citicord.uniroma1.it
Semerani, L., ed., special issue Architectural Design Profile - The School of Venice, no.59,
1985.
Scrivano, P., Storia di un’idea di architettura moderna, Henry Russell Hitchcock e
238
L’International Style. Milano, 2001.
Schuyt, K., Taverne, E., 1950: Prosperity and Welfare. Assen-London, (Dutch Culture in
European Context, 4) 2004.
Solà-Morales, M. de, ‘Ludovico Quaroni, Answers At Length’, special issue Revista
Urbanismo- ‘Ludovico Quaroni, de cerca’, no.7, 1989, 2-17.
Solà-Morales, M. de, ‘Quaroni, a Distant Lucidity’,
Urbanismo- ‘Ludovico Quaroni, de cerca’, no.7, 1989, 37- 47.
special
issue
Revista
Sini, C., ‘I dialoghi terreni di “aut aut” in 50 anni di filosofia’, Il manifesto, 29 Novembre
2001, now published at: Sito web Italiano per la Filosofia. Now at:
http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/rassegna/sini.htm.
Sijde, N. van der, Het literaire experiment, Jacques Derrida over literatuur. Amsterdam,
1998.
T
Tarrow, S., Graziano, L., eds., La Crisi Italiana. 2 vols., Torino, (Piccola biblioteca Einaudi
357) 1979.
Taverne, E., ‘Oproep voor een revisie van de beoefening van de kunstgeschiedenis in
Nederland’, offprint, Akt Kunsttijdschrift, no. 4, Groningen, 1984.
Taverne, E., Wagenaar C., ‘Tussen elite en massa, 010 en de opkomst van de
architectuurindustrie in Nederland’ , H. Oldewarris, P. de Winter eds., 20 jaar 010:
1983-2003/20 years 010: 1983-2003. Rotterdam, 2003.
Townsend, S., The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole aged 13 ¾. London, 1982.
Tournikiotis, P., The historiography of modern architecture, Cambridge Massachusetts,
1999.
V
Valente, M., Ideologia e potere, da “Il Politecnico” a “Contropiano” 1946-1972, Torino,
1978.
W
Watkin, D., A History of Western Architecture, London, 1986.
Widmar, B., Introduzione alla filosofia della scienza. Bari, 1993.
Wigley, M., The architecture of Deconstruction, Derrida’s Haunt. Cambridge
Massachusetts, 1993.
239
Wigley, M., ‘The Architectural Cult of Synchronisation’, The Journal of Architecture, vol. 4,
no. 4, 1999, 409-435.
White, H., Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe.
Baltimore, 1973.
Woud, A. van der., Waarheid en karakter, het debat over de bouwkunst 1840-1900.
Rotterdam, 1997. Translated as: The Art of Building, from Classicism to Modernity:
the Dutch Architectural Debate 1840-1900. Translated by Y. Blankvoort, Aldershot 2001.
Z
Zeeman, M., ‘Het kernidee voor een roman, Umberto Eco als essayist product van zijn
eigen faam’ , De Volkskrant, 24-10-03, 24.
Zevi, B., ‘Miti e rassegnazione storica’ , L’architettura storia e cronache, no. 155,
September 1968, 1-2.
Zevi, B., Frank Lloyd Wright. Milano, (Architetti del movimento moderno;3) 1947.
Zevi, B., Erik Gunnar Asplund. Milano, (Architetti del movimento moderno;6) 1948.
Zevi, B., Storia dell’architettura moderna. Torino, (Saggi 130) 1950.
Zevi, B., Saper vedere l’architettura: saggio sull’interpretazione spaziale dell’architettura.
Torino, 1948. Architecture as Space, how to look at architecture. Ed. by J.A. Barry and
trans. by M. Gendel, New York, 1957.
Zevi, B., ‘Quattro riforme nell’insegnamento della storia dell’architettura, Metron Rivista
internazionale d’architettura, no. 19, 1947, 11-34.
Zevi, B., Architettura e storiografie, le matrice antiche del linguaggio moderno. Torino,
(Piccola biblioteca Einaudi 216) 1974.
Zevi, B., Il linguaggio moderno dell’architettura: guida al codice anticlassico. Torino,
(Piccola biblioteca Einaudi 214) 1973. Published in English as: The Modern Language of
Architecture. Washington, 1978.
Zevi, B., Zevi su Zevi, architettura come profezia. Venezia, (Saggi Marsilio – Polis) 1993.
240
241
242
SAMENVATTING
De Italiaanse intellectueel Manfredo Tafuri (Rome 1935 - Venetië 1994) was één van de
meest belangrijke architectuurhistorici van de twintigste eeuw. Na zijn dood liet hij
aanzienlijk oeuvre achter bestaande uit zo’n drieëntwintig boeken en vele artikelen. Tafuri
schreef ook enkele bestsellers, waaronder Teorie e Storia dell’architettura (1968) en
Progetto e Utopia, architettura e sviluppo capitalistico (1973). Deze boeken werden in vele
landen vertaald, waaronder in het Nederlands, Spaans en Engels. In het boek Teorie e
Storia dell’architettura formuleerde Tafuri het standpunt dat bepalend zou worden voor
zijn architectuurhistorische loopbaan: hij bekritiseerde de zogenaamde ‘operatieve
geschiedschrijving’ en hield een pleidooi voor de architectuurgeschiedenis als een
onafhankelijke en kritische academische discipline.
Deze studie werpt een licht op een invloedrijk maar controversieel intellectueel, die in
de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw de initiator was van één van de meest
fundamentele debatten in de architectuurgeschiedenis. Echter, terwijl Tafuri een prominent wetenschapper en historicus was, bleef zijn werk voor velen een
ontoegankelijk karakter houden. Dit had als gevolg dat de receptie van Tafuri met name
bestond uit tekstanalyse van zijn belangrijkste werk; critici probeerden op deze wijze
Tafuri’s inzichten duidelijk te maken. Dit boek gaat uit van de stelling dat de betekenis van
Tafuri meer reliëf krijgt wanneer het niveau van de pure exegesis overstegen wordt.
Tafuri moet gezien worden in de context van zijn leven en zijn academische loopbaan in
Italië.
Met zijn aanval op ‘operatieve historici’ begon Tafuri aan het eind van de jaren zestig een
pleidooi voor een andere positie van het vak architectuurgeschiedenis. In plaats van een
technische materie die als hulpbron voor de ontwerppraktijk van architecten diende,
moest de architectuurgeschiedenis een historische wetenschap worden en zich
bovendien gaan manifesteren als onafhankelijke academische discipline. Het unieke van
deze positie was dat Tafuri daarmee een nog fundamentelere aanval inzette op de
utopische dimensie van de architectuurgeschiedenis, op het ideaal van Bildung. Tafuri is
daarmee de meest duidelijke representant van een nieuwe generatie historici die een
andere relatie hadden met het modernisme in de architectuur. Terwijl in de eerste helft
van de twintigste eeuw moderne architecten een tastbare bijdrage leverden aan de
vooruitgang van de wereld, ondersteunden architectuurhistorici deze missie door middel
van propagandistische boeken. Architectuurhistorici hadden, net als moderne architecten,
een toekomstideaal waaraan hun geschiedenissen bijdroegen. Maar Tafuri schreef zijn
geschiedenissen niet langer in het kader van de opvoeding van het lezerspubliek. In plaats
daarvan wilde hij de architectuurgeschiedenis ontwikkelen als een principieel
onafhankelijke en kritische wetenschappelijke discipline. Met Tafuri kwam er een einde
aan een generatie visionaire historici die brede overzichten boden en die, staande aan het
begin van een nieuwe tijd, het verleden met een verwachtingsvolle toekomst wisten te
combineren.
Alhoewel het werk van grote intellectuelen vaak een zekere tijdloosheid bezit, is het
tegelijkertijd zo dat een oeuvre onder tijd- en plaatsgebonden omstandigheden tot stand
komt. Alhoewel de relevantie van Freud’s psychoanalyse buiten kijf staat, kan zijn werk
243
niet gedacht worden buiten het repressieve klimaat van de Weense bourgeoisie om. Deze
studie biedt een inzicht in de drijfveren van Manfredo Tafuri en in de context waarin zijn
werk tot stand kwam. Het stelt niet alleen de vraag naar wat Tafuri schreef maar ook
waarom hij dat schreef en welke factoren hem daarbij beinvloedden. De vraag naar de
oorsprong van het denken van intellectuelen is net zo interessant als de vraag naar de
betekenis van het autonome oeuvre. Het feit dat de vraag naar de oorsprong nooit
helemaal beantwoord kan worden, betekent niet dat de vraag op zich niet gesteld kan
worden. Dat gebeurt in dit boek.
BENADERING
Tot nu toe zijn de meeste interpretaties van Tafuri exegetisch van karakter geweest.
Echter, een contextuele analyse levert nieuwe gezichtspunten op die bijdragen tot een
verdere definiëring van het belang van deze historicus. Dit boek combineert een
breedheid van visie, met aandacht voor de context van het architectuurhistorisch
onderwijs in Italië en de biografie van Tafuri, met een diepte-interpretatie van een aantal
van zijn werken. Het uitgangspunt van dit boek is dat een goede interpretatie van het werk
van Tafuri slechts tot stand kan komen wanneer twee valkuilen vermeden worden: die van
het opplakken van simplistische labels - Tafuri als ‘Marxistisch historicus’ of als ‘profeet
van de dood van de architectuur’ bijvoorbeeld - en, in het verlengde hiervan, het losweken
van historisch complexe fenomenen uit hun oorspronkelijke context. Tafuri’s ontwikkeling
als historicus en zijn bijdrage aan de architectuurgeschiedenis worden zo beoordeeld binnen het perspectief van wat een contextuele intellectuele geschiedenis genoemd kan
worden. Deze aanpak resulteert in twee speerpunten: het gaat om de institutionele en
intellectuele context, met andere woorden om de loopbaan die Tafuri had als professor in
de architectuurgeschiedenis in Venetië en de boeken die hij schreef tijdens zijn
academische loopbaan.
Gebruikmakend van de relatie tussen context en tekst, tussen leven en werk, bestaat
dit proefschrift uit een vijftal hoofdstukken, waarin telkens Tafuri’s boeken, baan en
biografie in onderlinge samenhang centraal staan. In een inleidend hoofdstuk beschrijf ik
de ‘discursieve gemeenschap’ waarin de receptie van Tafuri tot nu toe plaats gevonden
heeft; in hoofdstuk twee komt de biografie van Tafuri aan bod. In de overige hoofdstukken
gaat het er telkens om, een specifiek boek van Tafuri samen met een aspect van zijn leven
centraal te stellen.
Beinvloed door het tijdperk van het einde van de grote verhalen, door de onmogelijkheid
zich nog langer te identificeren met de grote geschiedverhalen rondom de Moderne
Beweging, maar zeker ook door de verwarring die ontstond na het overlijden van Tafuri
zelf, zijn in de afgelopen jaren sterk uiteenlopende Tafuri-interpretaties tot stand
gekomen. De Tafuri van de Griekse architectuurhistoricus Panayotis Tournikiotis is
bijvoorbeeld weer een heel andere dan die van de Amerikaanse architectuurhistoricus
James Ackerman. Tafuri zelf waarschuwde voor interpretaties die te veel afweken van de
Tafuri die hij zelf kende: dat wil zeggen, van een degelijke studie van de bronnen, ook in
het geval van de historiografie. Vanuit dit perspectief schets ik in het eerste hoofdstuk
zowel de receptie van Tafuri als de hoofdlijnen van de historiografische ontwikkeling waar
244
hij deel van uitmaakte.
In hoofdstuk twee gaat het om het thema van het politiek engagement.
Terwijl engagement bepaald geen automatisme is voor architectuurhistorici – vele architectuurhistorici werken bijvoorbeeld vanuit een puur esthetisch ideaal – werd Tafuri’s
leven getekend door juist dit thema. Tafuri onderscheidt zich van andere historici doordat
hij zijn werk als historicus telkens vanuit deze bron voedde. Terwijl Tafuri als kind van zijn
tijd alle fases van het maatschappelijk proces zeer bewust meemaakte, vertaalde hij deze
kwesties telkens naar indringende vragen voor de architectuurgeschiedenis. Met een
bevriende groep van architecten genaamd de AUA, de Associazione Urbanisti ed
Architetti, lokaliseert Tafuri zijn kritische stem aanvankelijk nog binnen een
samenwerkingsverband met architecten. Terwijl belangrijke zaken als de ruimtelijke
inrichting van Italië en de hervorming van planningsinstituties op het spel stonden,
ontwikkelde Tafuri, als historicus en als architect, een engagement dat omschreven kan
worden als een ethiek van deelname. Echter, door de teleurstellende uitkomst van deze
politieke strijd ging Tafuri twijfelen aan de waarde van dit engagement en aan de
realiteitszin van de band tussen de progressieve intellectueel en maatschappelijke
verandering. Enerzijds wilde hij tot een meer rigoreuze kritiek komen, die in zijn optiek
alleen een historische kritiek kon zijn. Anderzijds werd hij zich steeds meer bewust van de
eigen dimensie van de kritiek en de geschiedenis, van hun eigen ‘taal’ die niet samenviel
met de ‘taal’ van het ontwerp. Terwijl een hyper-politiek bewuste Tafuri daarvoor geen
onderscheid maakte tussen het stenen gooien naar de politie en het bestuderen van Le
Corbusier, werd Tafuri zich nu bewust van de noodzaak om, naast de zorg om de
actualiteit, recht te doen aan de complexiteit van de geschiedenis. Tafuri wisselde zo een
ethiek van deelname in voor een ethiek van kritische distantie. Tafuri zelf omschrijft deze
overgang met de woorden: ‘I will throw away the compass’. Tafuri verlaat het idee van
een architectonische kritiek die, als een gids, direct kan bijdragen aan de universele waarheidsclaim van een architectuurtheorie. In plaats daarvan bekeert hij zich tot de
destabiliserende werking van de historische kritiek, die vanuit zichzelf slechts de steeds
wisselende concepties van ‘waarheid’ aan het licht kan brengen.
In hoofdstuk drie wordt de lokale historiografische context in Rome geschetst.
De Romeinse architectuurfaculteit waar Tafuri studeerde werd gekenmerkt door twee
aspecten. In tegenstelling tot bijvoorbeeld de modernistische architectenopleiding aan
het Bauhaus te Weimar, nam architectuurgeschiedenis van het begin af aan een cruciale
plek in. Verder werd de architectuurfaculteit in Rome gekenmerkt door een afwijzing van
een als ‘noordelijk’ gezien modernisme. Tafuri werd onderwezen door historici die in deze
traditie stonden, maar hij werd ook geconfronteerd met historici die een andere mening
hadden. In de decennia na de Tweede Wereldoorlog braken de architect-historici Bruno
Zevi (1918-2000) en Leonardo Benevolo (1923-)met het anti-modernisme van de
Romeinse architectuurfaculteit. De architect-historici Bruno Zevi werden na de oorlog
gedreven door een hernieuwd vertrouwen in het modernisme, dat pas na de fascistische
dwaling de ruimte zou krijgen om zich daadwerkelijk te manifesteren. Na het fascistische
tijdperk kreeg het onderwijs in de moderne architectuurgeschiedenis voor zowel Zevi als
Benevolo een nieuwe urgentie: het werd een ethische taak, een gelegenheid om
toekomstige architecten te confronteren met fundamentele vragen over de zingeving van
hun taak en over hun rol in de maatschappij. In dit hoofdstuk beargumenteer ik dat het
245
boek Teorie e Storia dell’architettura (1968), Tafuri’s eerste fundamentele reflectie op de
architectuurgeschiedenis, vanuit nieuwe culturele referenties vertrekt die op zeer
gespannen voet stonden met de modernistische idealen van Zevi en Benevolo.
Deze referenties werden geformuleerd in reactie op een snel veranderende maatschappij
in de vijftiger en zestiger jaren; maar ook een andere reactie op het fascisme speelde een
rol. Zo was 1954 het jaar waarin niet alleen Giedion’s Space, Time and Architecture in het
Italiaans vertaald werd, maar ook Theodor Adorno’s Minima Moralia. Terwijl Teorie e Storia
beschouwd kan worden als de afronding van Tafuri’s periode in Rome, heeft het boek een
sterk afwijkend karakter vergeleken bij het werk van Zevi en Benevolo.
In hoofdstuk vier en vijf komen twee momenten aan bod, die bepalend zijn geweest
voor Tafuri’s conceptie van de architectuurgeschiedenis als autonome discipline. Ik laat
zien hoe Tafuri na zijn afstuderen worstelt met een mogelijke inzet van de architectuurgeschiedenis in het debat over de toekomst van de moderne architectuur. Daarbij kan men
een ontwikkeling onderscheiden van ‘experimenteel operatief’ naar ‘experimenteel historisch’ waarbij het vermijden de acceptatie van de fundamentele onzekerheid van de historicus de leidraad blijft.
Hoofdstuk vier gaat over een jonge Tafuri , die als publicist en docent weliswaar erg
betrokken was bij het debat van dat moment, maar ook grote vragen had over de toekomst van de moderne architectuur. De vraag was voor hem of, in een snel veranderende
maatschappij waarin ook de betekenis van het architectonisch modernisme niet meer
vast lag, de architectuurgeschiedenis kon vasthouden aan haar rol zoals vastgelegd in de
eerste helft van de 20e eeuw. Tafuri had, samen met zijn vrienden, een groot bewustzijn
van de ‘nieuwe’ moderne maatschappij zoals die zich in de jaren vijftig en zestig aankondigde: hij probeerde dit modernisme buiten de clichés van mythische grote namen – Le
Corbusier, Gropius – te interpreteren. Centraal stond zo de onbepaaldheid van de moderne stad, die in haar explosieve groei nauwelijks door architecten gecontroleerd kon worden. De stad was de plaats van de crisis; een fenomeen dat niet alleen betrekking had op
het moeizame opereren van architecten, maar ook een bijna existentiële betekenis kreeg.
Op basis van dit denken over de crisis van de moderne architectuur trok Tafuri de consequenties voor de historiografie. Zoals de stad ophoudt een vanuit het ontwerpproces gecontroleerd idee of synthese te zijn en een ‘ongecontroleerd’ fenomeen wordt, zo moet
ook de historiografie ophouden synthese te zijn en zich ontwikkelen als fenomeen, als
tout-court geschiedenis. De Romeinse architect Ludovico Quaroni was een toetssteen
voor Tafuri in de zoektocht naar een andere ethiek. Quaroni was de ‘meester van het experiment’, voor wie een steeds terugkerende zelf-kritiek een vitale impuls was die leidde
tot het constant bijstellen van ambities en plannen. Tafuri wijdt zijn meest belangrijke boek
in deze fase aan het werk van deze architect. Zoals Tafuri schrijft in Ludovico Quaroni e lo
sviluppo dell’architettura moderna in Italia (1964) is Quaroni met zijn werk exemplarisch
voor een omslag in mentaliteit. De leidraad van een ‘sterke’ methode wordt losgelaten
ten gunste van de acceptatie van onzekerheid en een zoekende houding. Het wegvallen
van ‘sterke’ methodes levert een nieuwe, wellicht tragische, vrijheid van interpretatie op,
die Tafuri probeerde te vertalen naar de architectuurgeschiedenis. Quaroni is voor Tafuri
het voorbeeld van een architect die de confrontatie zoekt met een eerlijke, wellicht wrede
maar ook authentieke en levendige geschiedenis. Het contrast met Bruno Zevi maar ook
met de Romeinse stedebouwkundige Saverio Muratori was op dat moment al erg groot:
246
tegenover de problematisering van Tafuri, stond de poging van Muratori om de
architectuurgeschiedenis te institutionaliseren als een ‘parametro di controllo’ in
het ontwerpproces.
In het vijfde hoofdstuk wordt beschreven, hoe Tafuri zijn anti-operatieve ‘stem’ verder
ontwikkeld binnen de uitzonderlijke academische gemeenschap van het Istituto
Universitario di Architettura di Venezia. In 1968, wanneer Tafuri benoemd wordt tot professor in de architectuurgeschiedenis, begint hij aan de meest substantiële taak van zijn
loopbaan. Tafuri wordt bouwheer binnen de universiteit: binnen de institutionele setting
van Zevi’s Istituto di Storia dell’architettura begint hij aan de bouw van architectuurgeschiedenis als autonome academische discipline. Tafuri’s kritiek op het klassieke politieke
engagement en op de dogma’s van links leidt tot het besluit om, tegen de tijdsgeest in,
het bestaande universitaire systeem niet te verwerpen, maar om haar te gebruiken voor
een ‘revolutie van binnenuit’. Tegelijkertijd formuleert Tafuri in deze periode zijn meest
radicale inzichten ten aanzien van het wezen van de moderne architectuur. In het artikel
‘Per una critica dell’ideologia architettonica’ (1969) poneert Tafuri voor het eerst de stelling
dat architectuur, als gevolg van het afgenomen belang van de architectuur in de
maatschappij, slechts ideologisch van karakter is. In het boek Progetto e Utopia,
architettura e sviluppo capitalistico werkt Tafuri deze hypothese uit tot een fundamentele
revisie van de moderne architectuurgeschiedenis. Tafuri stelt dat dfe marginalisatie van de
architect te danken is aan een fundamentele breuk die in de zeventiende eeuw optreedt
tussen het denken enerzijds en systemen van (technisch) beheer en bestuur anderzijds.
Bedreigd door deze arbeidsdeling, bevecht de architect zijn lot door de inventie van een
nieuwe identiteit, die nu echter slechts ideologisch kan zijn. Op dit punt, stelt Tafuri,
begint de geschiedenis van de moderne architectuur. Het boek Progetto e Utopia was het
tegendeel van de triomfalistische moderne architectuurgeschiedenis van Pevsner en Giedion. Tafuri gebruikt nu de bestaande institutionele structuur van de universiteit voor de
bouw van een onafhankelijk onderzoekscentrum om deze revisie verder uit te werken.
Naast het programma van de architect moet er een programma van de historicus komen,
die telkens een kritisch tegenwicht biedt aan de utopieën van de architectuur, alsook haar
plaats binnen een bredere maatschappelijke constellatie evident maakt. Tafuri breekt zo
met de utopische dimensie van de architectuurgeschiedenis. In plaats daarvan stelt hij de
pluraliteit en de complexiteit van het verleden centraal. Tafuri ziet de architectuurgeschiedenis als een specialisatie binnen de historische wetenschappen: architectuur is een ‘nuttige categorie van analyse’ die een specifiek licht kan werpen op de maatschappij.
Deze studie gaat voorbij aan de ijle abstractie van wie Tafuri beschouwt als de optelsom
van zijn boeken. Een contextuele geschiedenis maakt duidelijk dat de door Tafuri geforceerde breuk alleen in Italië had kunnen plaatsvinden. Dat heeft te maken met de plaats
van de architectuur en stedebouw in de Italiaanse maatschappij en de mate waarin de
materiële cultuur in Italië een weerslag is van de geschiedenis van het land. Deze verbinding werd problematisch tijdens het fascisme: na de oorlog werd duidelijk dat de verbinding tussen architectonisch modernisme en fascisme een onproblematisch verder gaan
op oude voet onmogelijk maakte. Tafuri’s breuk met de operatieve architectuurgeschiedenis kon alleen plaatsvinden tegen deze achtergrond van het verbond tussen architectuur,
stedebouw en de politieke geschiedenis van een land.
247
248
INDEX
A
Aalto, Alvar 135, 136
Ackerman, James 13, 14, 29, 39, 98
Adorno, Theodor W. 32, 78
Alberti, Leon Battista 17, 27, 80, 101,102, 213
Albini, Franco 151
Argan, Giulio Carlo 57, 58, 98
Asor Rosa, Alberto 24, 27, 30, 158, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 173
Astengo, Giovanni 121, 122, 162
Aulenti, Gae 24, 25, 27
Aymonino, Carlo 61, 154, 161, 189
B
Banfi, Gian Luigi 48, 113
Banham, Reyner 21, 84
Barbieri, Umberto 39
Barth, Karl 59
Barthes, Roland 29, 78
Basso, Lelio 66
Baudelaire, Charles185, 206
Behrens, Peter 183
Benevolo, Leonardo 25, 27, 52, 61, 65,75,76, 77, 78, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90,
91, 93, 95, 98,100, 102, 103,109, 110, 111, 118, 134, 143, 155, 185, 190, 193, 196
Benjamin, Walter 78,167, 179, 183,1 85, 190, 195, 196, 198, 199, 208
Bense, Max 78
Bijhouwer, Roy 39
Bloch, Marc 64, 77
Bloom, Harold 32,36
Bodei, Remo 13
Bonelli, Renato 52, 98, 135
Bonifazio, Patrizia 19, 119, 144
Borromini, Francesco 103, 163, 217, 219
Boullée, Etienne-Louis 136, 138
Bracco, Sergio 53, 130
Bramante, Donato 83
Branzi, Andrea 24, 25, 27
Brunelleschi, Filippo 17, 101, 102, 213, 214, 217
Bruschi, Arnaldo 65, 83, 85, 89
Buonarroti, Michelangelo 27, 29, 57, 69, 98, 217, 223
C
Cacciari, Massimo 8, 25, 27, 30,31, 33, 66, 157, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 171, 173,
175, 177, 178, 179,180, 181, 183, 187, 189, 190, 195, 197, 199, 201, 206, 208, 209
Camus, Albert 48, 49
Cantimori, Delio 77
249
Casciato, Maristella 49, 76,79, 81, 90, 94
Ceccarelli, Paolo 48
Cederna, Antonio 53, 55
Chastel, André 28, 29
Ciucci, Giorgio 15, 53, 63, 110, 111, 113, 119, 121, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131,
142, 165, 191, 193, 195
Cohen, Jean-Louis 28, 29, 31, 39,154, 163, 165, 193, 195
Cohn Bendit, Daniel 149
Collins, Peter 17, 19, 21, 84
Connors, Joseph 14
Croce, Benedetto 52, 78, 94, 133, 135, 175
D
Dal Co, Francesco 11, 13, 17, 31, 33, 107, 109, 113, 119, 121, 126, 129,
162,165, 166, 171, 172, 173,181, 183, 187, 189, 191, 193, 196, 197, 212
De Carlo, Giancarlo 121, 122, 162
De Heer, Jan 39
De Michelis, Cesare 157, 167, 193
De Michelis, Marco 153, 1565, 157, 162, 165 -193
Derrida, Jacques 31, 33, 34, 199
De Solà Morales, Manuel 142
Dos Santos, Emanuel Rodriguez 140, 141
E
Eco, Umberto 78, 87, 123
Endell, August 173, 178, 179, 180
Engel, Henk 39
F
Fasolo, Vincenzo 52, 53, 75, 76, 81
Fasolo, Furio 75, 83
Febvre, Lucien 14, 77
Filarete 80
Foa, Vittorio 66
Folin, Marino 24
Fonti, Alessandro 157, 205
Fortini, Franco 30, 31, 122
Frampton, Kenneth 30, 32, 80, 136
Francastel, Pierre 55, 57
G
Giedion, Siegfried 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 51, 52, 57, 75, 78, 89, 103, 160, 173,
185, 190, 191, 196
Ginzborg, Paul 154
Giovannoni, Gustavo 75, 76, 80, 81, 83, 90, 100
Greco, Saul 130
Gregotti, Vittorio 113, 117, 121, 210
250
Gropius, Walter 16, 17, 57, 58, 63, 65, 75, 79, 90, 137, 173, 187, 189
H
Habermas, Jürgen 32
Hauser, Arnold 76, 89, 102, 155,158, 185
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 48, 49, 81, 175, 178
Heidegger, Martin 49, 51, 58, 197, 201, 202
Heynen, Hilde 31, 33
Hitchcock, Henry-Russell 19, 31
Hoeger, Fritz 137
Horkheimer, Max 32
I
Insolera, Italo 85
J
Joedicke, Jürgen 17, 19, 21
Johnson, Philip 139
K
Kafka, Franz 66, 137Kahn, Louis 135, 136
Kant, Immanuel 49, 81
Kierkegaard, Søren 48, 59, 66
L
Le Corbusier 11, 19, 28, 59, 65, 90, 126, 135, 136, 158, 171, 172, 173,
187, 223
Le Goff, Jacques 14
Levi, Franco 161
Levi, Giovanni 14
Libera, Adalberto 111, 130, 153
Llorens, Tomas 31, 117, 211
Longo, Tommaso Giura 85, 90
Lukács, György 65, 66, 166
Lyotard, Jean-François 33
M
Manieri Elia, Mario 65, 85, 89, 110, 140, 143, 165, 191
Marx, Karl 32, 49, 86, 137, 175, 177, 178, 179
Melograni, Carlo 65, 85, 90
Melograni, Piero 61
Mendelsohn, Eric 71
Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig 19,139
Mole, Adrian 48
Morris, William 16,17, 63, 75, 85, 87,90, 110, 137, 140, 173, 190
Mumford, Louis 95
Muntoni, Alessandra 83, 84, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 99, 100
251
Muratori, Saverio 60, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 142
Mussolini, Benito 11, 167
N
Negri, Antonio 154,165,166,167,193
Newton, Isaac 136
Nietzsche, Friedrich 11, 32, 66, 157, 158, 173, 175, 177, 178, 179, 181, 190,
201, 218, 221
Nora, Pierre 14
O
Ockman, Joan 36, 39, 40, 196
Olivetti, Adriano 119
Oud, Johannes Jacobus Pieter 139
P
Paci, Enzo 48, 49
Pagano, Giuseppe 113
Panofsky, Erwin 95, 214, 215
Panzieri, Raniero 66, 122
Passerini, Luisa 22, 33, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61,
63, 66, 67, 68, 71,77, 113, 151, 159, 162, 196
Pevsner, Nikolaus 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 51, 57, 75, 78, 79, 89, 137, 160, 172,
173, 185, 190, 191, 196, 197, 198, 202
Piacentini, Marcello 65, 81, 83, 158
Piccinato, Giorgio 53, 118, 119, 123
Piccinato, Luigi 61, 122,121, 151, 162
Pigafetta, Giorgio 130, 133, 134, 142
Platz, Gustav Adolf 16
Poelzig, Hans 137
Portoghesi, Paolo 69, 71, 98
Q
Quaroni, Ludovico 25, 61, 67, 68, 69, 113, 151, 117, 119, 122, 123, 126,
129, 130, 134, 141-146, 162
Quilici, Vieri 53, 77, 118, 123, 126, 127,130, 143, 165
R
Radiconcini, Silvio 98
Rathenau, Walter 183
Revel, Jacques 14
Ridolfi, Mario 49, 51, 142
Rogers, Ernesto Nathan 57, 67, 68, 84, 107, 113, 117, 151
Rosi, Francesco 55
Rossetti, Bagio 103
Rossi, Aldo 113, 117, 210
Rossi, Carlo Domenico 53
252
Rossi, Paolo 64
S
Saggio, Antonino 156
Samonà, Alberto 65, 210
Samonà, Giuseppe 76, 85, 119, 121, 122, 123, 151, 161, 162, 210
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 46, 48, 49, 146
Scarpa, Carlo 151
Simmel, Georg 157, 158, 173, 178, 179, 180, 183, 195, 206
Sombart, Werner 173, 178, 179, 180, 195
Stam, Mart 16, 22, 34
Steiner, Georg 95
T
Tambroni, Fernando 63, 64, 65
Taverne, Ed 36, 39, 118, 122
Teodori, Massimo 107, 109, 110, 118
Terragni, Giuseppe 111
Tournikiotis, Panayotis 19, 32, 33, 34, 35,163, 185, 187
Tronti, Mario 30, 165, 166, 175
V
Valori, Michele 61
Van Dijk, Hans 39
Van Eyck, Aldo 29, 31
Violet-Le-Duc, Eugène Emmanuel 81
Vischer, Friedrich Theodor 81
Vittone, Bernardo 87
Vittorini, Elio 122
Vitruvius 80
W
Wölfflin, Heinz 95
Wickhoff, Franz 95
Widmar, Bruno, 49, 66
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 173, 175
Wittkower, Rudolf, 29, 195, 215
Wright, Frank Lloyd 58, 75, 76, 144, 155, 190, 191
Z
Zevi, Bruno 23, 25, 27, 48, 51, 52, 57, 58, 61, 64, 68, 69, 71,75,76, 77, 78,
83, 84, 90, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104-109, 110, 11, 113, 134, 135, 142,
144, 151, 154, 155, 185, 190, 193, 196
253